Men as protectors

Surely the point about feminism is that we should be free to choose.

The freedom to choose to be in a relationship with a man is not in danger, and will in all probability, never be. Your right to choose with which dude to be in a relationship might be taken away by patriarchy, but the "freedom" to be with a man, you will always have.

Therefore, feminists are more concerned with the freedom that is actually under threat all the time: The freedom to NOT be with a man.

Here "I was just concerned that the thread seemed to be veering off into an "all women would be happier without a man" direction without any challenge. "

I didn't think so at all. I thought it was asking why certain ideas are so prevalent, that's all.

Vestal you aren't wrong.

But it's not demonisung (all) men that will change those women's attitudes. It's educating them that there is quite another way to live.

Telling them that they can hold men to higher standards because there are lots of good men out there.

Not all men disrespect women.

But apparently enough men do so that some women think they have to marry such a man.

It is not feminists who claim that all men are violent assholes, it is the average, non-feminist woman who cites this as her lived experience.

I am not interested in the occasional, exceptional, respectful and non-violent dude (except if he looks good and is single), as politically, he is not significant. He may well exist, but the system of patriarchy exists in spite of him.

The main contributor to women feeling unsafe is the endless 'world is frightening' narrative.

The world wouldn't be half as frightening if there was no male violence. The reason I don't dare travel through South America? Not the poisonous snakes, but the violent dudes.

If the threat of male violence wasn't so very real, then this "'world is frightening' narrative would not be believed.

Of course you can make that statement Lorelei. Of course you don't need a man.

I was just concerned that the thread seemed to be veering off into an "all women would be happier without a man" direction without any challenge.

Surely the point about feminism is that we should be free to choose.

it is indeed Feminist Chat.

I often find myself creeping on here, to creep away again after apparently upsetting someone...but does everything really need "NAMALT/NAWALT" after it? Should we ask MN to add it?

If I can't make that comment "thank god I'm not heading into old age with a bloke" on this board, where can I make it? This is pretty much what real life is like - a good deal of offence taken at someone who enjoys being single. Though as a pp said, that extends to men now as well as women.

Grim I'm a priveleged, white woman in a long and happy marriage.

I'm still a feminist. I can still observe injustices as they apply to me (and they do) and to those less fortunate than me, many of whom live unbearable lives.

Of course many many men are violent.
And women are oppressed by men.

But not all men are oppressive or violent.
Not all women are unhappy in their relationships. That's one of several answers to why women haven't just 'walked out'.

I'm a feminist. I'm raising my son and daughter to be feminists.

I don't want either if my children to live in a world where women continue to be hurt and oppressed, but neither do I want them to be raised in a world which considers men to be only base creatures, at the mercy of their own violent natures.

No. Feminism is more concerned with magnifying the percieved threat to the vulnerable and unhappy, so that they stay scared, and in support of feminism. Its the same as religion or a cult, you need vulnerable people to feel scared so they gather in a pack around the gurus. Feminism relies on a narrative that men are dangerous, that women are vulnerable, that women are slags if they enjoy sex, and men are all powerful. The question I can never resolve is how repeating and exaggerating this world view helps women

Hang on though. This is FwR. Male violence and oppression is a central tenet of some strands of feminism, so you are certainly going to see that on this board. Feminism isn't really concerned with those women who are happy and content, is it? And that is NOT a criticism.

There is exactly that assumption being made.

There seems to be an underlying g assumption on the thread that all women would be better off without their man.

Not all relationships are unhappy.
Not all men are violent.
Not all men disrespect women.
Not all men are unfaithful.

Of course there are lots of women living in terrible circumstances, who feel that they can't leave and that is something we should seek to change.

But there is nothing fundamentally flawed regarding the notion of a woman choosing a lifelong partner to live with and raise children with.

It's not the only way to live of course but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The main contributor to women feeling unsafe is the endless 'world is frightening' narrative.

Also life is very very long. I think my mother might be relieved when dad goes and tbh I think that will comes a shock to her. She would certainly have said everything in the garden was very nice till quite recently.

Tei "There needs to be some explanation for why over all this time, women haven't just walked out."

The thing is, it's not about all men and women of course. In terms of children, in many cases that's more of a reason to escape, not less?

Lass - I don't apply my comments to anyone else, just me. Where I get cross is the assumption that others know me better than I know myself.

The thing described about widows in the paper, I've certainly seen. I've also seen it not be the case at all. But I didn't think I needed to put a blanket "not applicable to everyone" to avoid anyone taking offence.

Well, nice for you, Lass.

Many women settle for men who hate women, walk into that hell with seeing eyes. There are women who are of the opinion that all men joke about gang rape, and that therefore, one should marry such men.

Those grieving widows you talk about are perhaps not the same women who thought "Well, all men are shit, might just as well take this asshole".

(Though of course, some attachment will form if one lives with even the most horrid asshole for over fourty years. Interesting, that the widows still cope very well with the loss, isn't it?)

Of course a curfew for men would never be considered.

Actually, I think there was something like that in Spain. Only for one night, and only as a sort of publicity thing by the mayor, but apparently, someone did consider it.

... not in India, though.

Would be a very good solution - I think it worked very well in Spain, much less police needed, etc.

While for women, the death of a husband means that a hole into which they poured a lot of energy is gone, and they now can give that time and energy to friends who give something back

I think that is a trite, glib and dismissive statement of the grief experienced by widows and an opinion you would do well to keep to yourself when faced with a widow.

I cannot imagine anything worse than heading into old age with a bloke around

Well bully for you. And as above.

My husband is 5 years older than me and I keep better health. I expect to be a widow. If anyone were to make comments like these when it happens I would cut them out of my life.

There's a thread on here about a recently-single woman who is being pursued by her best friend's husband.

Unfortunately, I think it is fairly common for women who come out of relationships (and therefore lack a prominent protector as such) to be seen as "fair game" for certain men.

I mostly don't believe in sociobiology, but maybe over the millennia there have been lots of incidents where women removed themselves from male control, assuming that there was somewhere they could escape to. But then those women wouldn't have children, and the ones who stayed behind would, no matter how miserable their lives were. Hence perhaps it's built into the human personality that women will tolerate men. There needs to be some explanation for why over all this time, women haven't just walked out.

I forgot to say, I saw the article about widows and it doesn't surprise me in the least. I have never said it to my mother but I think that it will probably apply to her.

I am single by choice and after I finished with my last partner and said "right that's it" I was told so much shite about how I'd be lonely when I am older. I cannot imagine anything worse than heading into old age with a bloke around.

I don't know about the answer to your question OP

as a 40 year old single woman I feel I am constantly being given a message that men are protectors - but yes, obviously from other men. I do think men are bombarded with the message that "single is wrong" as well, but obviously for different reason.

in terms of needing protection from men - I wish I had a source for this, but once, at work, I was talking about anxiety around living alone in a house. (I currently live in a block of flats).

A colleague said to me that single women were statistically the least vulnerable to attack. Initially this surprised me but then I realised - probably the vast majority of attacks on women are from their partners. So that "statistic" might well be right.

Relatives in India were irate after the much publicised rapes because there was a suggestion of curfews for women. Of course a curfew for men would never be considered.

Grimarse, I do think this is pretty much universal in most cultures - at least everywhere where men expect women to do their emotional labour for them. Those men become very lonely very fast when their partner dies, as they never learnt how to satisfy their own emotional needs, build real friendships, etc.

While for women, the death of a husband means that a hole into which they poured a lot of energy is gone, and they now can give that time and energy to friends who give something back.

Thefitfatty, I think it is because "get rid of men" is considered unthinkable by the general public that most women never realize that we only need men to protect us because men are violent.

Living in the Middle East I hear the "men as protectors" line far too often. Usually connected to some twaddle about how women are precious diamonds and they need to be protected from thieves (so men need to protect us from other men? Maybe we should just get rid of the men?).

It's nonsense and horribly infantalizing.

The was an article in Saturday's Times about a new study which found that women were happier and less stressed than men after the death of their partner.

I don't know how this applies in other cultures though. There is a Japanese societal movement away from marriage and long-term relationships. A lot of young people are avoiding sex altogether;

www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex

It will be interesting to see how this pans out in 30-40 years time, and whether we see anything like this in Western Europe.

To be honest I think single men over the age of say 40 are probably thought of as being more odd/outsiders than single women

Perhaps by some, nowadays. The evidence that women are happier and more successful singles is just overwhelming.

Though I think there's a reason why the TV format to go with "Bachelor" is named "Bachelorette" instead of "Spinster" (This is something that has been imported from English speaking countries, is it? I shudder to think that we invented that shit - for those who successfully avoided it, it is a number of women competing for the affections of the eponymous bachelor. And then, later on, one where a number of men compete for a woman has been added)

There undoubtedly was a culture that considered women who weren't married as outsiders, and it probably has been conserved in some remote places. I often hear opinions that I thought had died out thirty years ago.

@TeiTetua: Yes, that is about it. But people never say it (well, except feminists, that is)

As the saying goes, "Better to be alone than wish you were".

And I think it's unspoken but obvious that a "protector" is a man who'll guard a woman against other men, for her benefit and his own. In that sense a "protector" is a "protection racket" where the tribute has to be paid for fear of harm from the one it wasn't paid to, or someone just like him.