Men as protectors

Freshwater - exactly! I can imagine you're asked that question a lot. And presumably that narrative "you should be scared" is based on a false idea of lone women being targeted?

Vestal "Besides, if you are a woman who can afford a house on her own, you can afford proper safety, too. The greatest risk to a woman's safety that results from not living with a man is probably poverty. Having to live in a high-crime area because rent is cheaper there ... I think that is the real danger.

I'm not really worried about muggings and burglars. It's just money, and I have most of my money in my bank account, anyway. As you say, nothing worth nicking there!"

this is a tough one - I don't live in a low crime area but statistically still less likely to be mugged than a man?

Re muggings and burglaries, my worry is that they will be accompanied by violence, sorry, I should have made that clear.

I'm interested in what you mean by "proper safety" - I guess you mean alarm systems for a house and so on? My worry is that someone will want to break in while I'm there though - I wouldn't necessarily have a burglar alarm activated while at home.

I'm still thinking about the original question - are men still viewed as protectors?

I think the knee jerk reaction is to say "No, durr, that's totally outdated, who even thinks that any more?".

But then I reflect on my life. My husband works away a lot, and is rarely here during the week, so I am often alone in an isolated rural house.

I am struggling to think of a friend or acquaintance who hasn't at some point asked me a variation of "When Mr Freshwater is away, aren't you afraid?". I get it at least once a fortnight.

If the concept of my husband protecting me is so out of date, what are they asking me? It's not "Aren't you lonely?" - that comes as separate question. They think I must be more afraid when alone than when he's there. The nub of it is that they think there is something that I have when he is there, that I don't have when he isn't, and it isn't just companionship, so it must be protection.

Weird, isn't it?

I was also worried that if I lived alone in a house, as opposed to a flat, I might be seen as an easy target so it would be interesting to know what the stats are there. but I've probably just swallowed some rubbish stories from somewhere, presumably burglars go on what they think they will get and they wouldn't get anything worth nicking from me!

I don't think burglars who are just after money (as opposed to those rapists who break into houses) go for the houses of single women, specifically.

Most choose times when the inhabitants aren't at home, anyway. So, being away and not having good security systems is more important than having a man live with you.

Besides, if you are a woman who can afford a house on her own, you can afford proper safety, too. The greatest risk to a woman's safety that results from not living with a man is probably poverty. Having to live in a high-crime area because rent is cheaper there ... I think that is the real danger.

I'm not really worried about muggings and burglars. It's just money, and I have most of my money in my bank account, anyway. As you say, nothing worth nicking there!

The US has a lot more citizens, so of course they have higher murder numbers. (Of course, it is still pretty grim, which is because getting a gun is so easy. But you may want to google "Counting Dead Woman", a website by a woman in the UK ...)

As to the patriarchy I still firmly believe it is a class and religious thing rather than men in general.

Ah, but who invented religions? Who invented class? And why do both systems benefit men so much?

There lies a true patriarchy unlike in the west were we have things a lot easier.

Do you really think we have things easier because we don't live in a 'true' patriarchy?
Please.
We have things easier because we can exploit the rest for the world. Men who have more than enough money are simply not as determined to take it away from the women they live with.
Noblewomen had it pretty nice in the Middle Ages, they could become nuns and have the semblance of a career as book author.

However, this was all built on the backs of women from the lower classes.

We are now more removed from those women who are exploited, but do you really think we could keep our standard of living without the cheap labour from the third world?
I highly doubt it.

Single women are already at high risk of poverty in the EU, and this would of course worsen if those poor women could not buy t-shirts for 5 euros and such.

Look at this:

www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-being-single-in-america/267043/

Every woman who refuses to prostitute herself for money is, as a default, single. Therefore, single women are the basis on which we must estimate women's economic situation.

True, this is from the US, and being poor in the US is a nightmare, but this holds true for many European countries, too.

Vestal I do find America a very grim place when it comes to Murder. In the year quoted by the research the FBI estimated 14,612 people were murdered which in comparison to the UK 564 for the same year makes me feel a lot safer. Actually I feel safer with DD or DS1 with me as both have studied martial arts rather DH who has no inclination to get out of a book.

As to the patriarchy I still firmly believe it is a class and religious thing rather than men in general. We need to do more in the third world where I have seen so much suffering. Ensuring money gets to women and girls so they have the opportunity to study or start businesses without relying on partners handing them things. There lies a true patriarchy unlike in the west were we have things a lot easier. DD will soon have her STEM degree and in all probability will need to choose between Germany and the US for her career. Simply because the UK has no opportunities in comparison for either sex.

thanks Vestal

my colleague seemed to think that single women were at lowest risk of attack including muggings etc. I think she's right in the sense that most muggings are targeted at young men aren't they? We weren't thinking of murder specifically tbh.

I was also worried that if I lived alone in a house, as opposed to a flat, I might be seen as an easy target so it would be interesting to know what the stats are there. but I've probably just swallowed some rubbish stories from somewhere, presumably burglars go on what they think they will get and they wouldn't get anything worth nicking from me!

I found a site with statistics:

www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

"Sixteen times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,509 victims)
than were killed by male strangers (92 victims).

For victims who knew their offenders, 61 percent (926) of female homicide victims
were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers."

Apparently, the safest thing is to not know any men, and the second safest thing is to be single.

Though I would like to know what the exact risk of being murdered as single woman or as woman in a relationship in percent is, but can't seem to find a page that states it.

Jeremy Corbyn took some flak for considering separate railway carriages for men and women. Are steps like this more logical, rather than men foisting themselves upon women as some sort of personal bouncer?

One flaw in this (among others) is that any woman not in a separate railway carriage who gets assaulted, hassled etc. is likely to get blamed for not being in a woman only carriage (a variation on the short skirt - asking for it - theme).

It's amazing the lengths society goes to making women responsible for men's arseholery.

Vestal "I believe it is statistically safer to be single. Someone might have posted a link with regard to that here ... I'll go look if I can find it."

that's what my colleague was saying but she didn't mention an actual study - I did look and I can't find one.

"How do they propose you find out if the man you are to keep on hand is himself a danger to you?" do you know what, it doesn't seem to occur to these people that might happen.

The obvious solution is for men to act properly, with compassion and respect, and not to assault women. But that is easier said than done. So is separatism on some level the answer? Jeremy Corbyn took some flak for considering separate railway carriages for men and women. Are steps like this more logical, rather than men foisting themselves upon women as some sort of personal bouncer?

I agree. But I have many, apparently sane, contacts, who argued this point for a long time - the fact in their heads is that there are men, I am more at risk from them (in their opinion) and they think I could mitigate that risk by keeping a man on hand.

How do they propose you find out if the man you are to keep on hand is himself a danger to you?
After all, if this was so easy, then no woman ever would be murdered by her partner or husband - while in fact, many, many, many women are

I believe it is statistically safer to be single. Someone might have posted a link with regard to that here ... I'll go look if I can find it.

Vestal "I mean, why would I be scared if there are no men in a three mile radius? "

I agree. But I have many, apparently sane, contacts, who argued this point for a long time - the fact in their heads is that there are men, I am more at risk from them (in their opinion) and they think I could mitigate that risk by keeping a man on hand.

Do you get scared at night without a man?

Haha, this question is the best! I mean, why would I be scared if there are no men in a three mile radius? I'm too old to fear monsters under the bed, so all I could worry about is burglars and rapists, who happen to be almost always male.

Personally, I see protection as being about caring for a person in large part and it's only recently that I've kind of been coming to suspect that men don't see protection as involving any element of emotional support.

You see protection as something a man does because he cares about you. Part of a parcel that also includes emotional support.

BUT

And that is probably the important difference: Men see women as objects (if you don't like the implication, ask the woman who recommended to stay with a rape-joke-telling asshole because "all men objectify women" why she has such grim views), so the protection is more about property and not about caring.
You make sure your money is safe, but you don't kiss the coins goodnight, if you're not Dagobert Duck. Objects do not need emotional support, so the idea of giving it would seem nonsensical to you.

Singing, thanks, i was on my phone when I posted and couldn't get a sense of what the guy was saying.

In a dating context, those comments are doubly annoying. For a start, if you are meeting someone for the first time, you'd be better off not walking with them surely. Also, then it's just pretending to be someone you aren't to snare the person - then again, I think a lot of the time that's what dating is about!

I used to see that "letting someone look after you" thing - even a parent - as being quite inocuous. Now I see it as a huge PITA. There are times I just indulge people of course, it's part and parcel of life, but playing the little woman who needs protecting while you're dating sounds insane. But "dating culture" seems insane generally. Och well.

lorelei - EMK is a dating coach so I think he is just saying that men like to feel that their efforts to look after their partner are appreciated. So if a man says "it'll be dark by the time you get back to the station, can I pick you up?" and you'd rather just walk any way, you're always better off saying "I'd rather walk but I really appreciate you looking out for me" rather than "no, I'm perfect capable of getting myself home safely thanks very much". And if you're indifferent between walking and getting a lift it might be good for the relationship just to take the lift and make your man feel that he's looking after you (which he is - although the same scenario works with the genders reversed). At least I have never read anything more into it than that.

Grimarse" "In which case, isn't the use of the word 'protection' misleading? You seem to be saying that the requirement in a relationship is for caring, not protection."

You are illustrating my point! It's only misleading if you see protection and emotional care giving as being completely different things, which I suspect many women don't, in certain contexts such as modern relationships at least. Personally, I see protection as being about caring for a person in large part and it's only recently that I've kind of been coming to suspect that men don't see protection as involving any element of emotional support.

DPotter, I am so not surprised. Reminds me of being at school and being told what wife stands for.

Ebear, yes you grew up in a totally different place than I did and yours sounds much nicer. The thing you describe in Hackney is the sort of thing I just meh at because I think, why are people so fucking noisy. Loads of that sort of thing where I grew up.

I do sometimes wonder if I'll get punched for eye rolling at some anti social network ncident but it's hard not to, my sister does it as well.

Years ago when I was at uni studying Psychology we spent time looking at the Camberwell mental health surveys from the 1950/ 60s ? They showed that the 'happiest' people were married men and the 'unhappiest' were married women, with singles and widows / widowers in between. So there's nothing new in this survey. But why - well- Phd's and whole careers have been spent trying to get to the bottom of that one. I didn't read the report as meaning husbands are 'protective' but coupledom as being protective in the mental health sense , not from physical threats per se. Although I'm always wary of how general journalists report scientific findings

Mind you, we were never allowed after dark to take the footpath that crossed through the woods, not even in a group, in case of poachers, in case they mistook one of us for anow animal. I may have grown up with different concerns from urban-dwellers...

The only time I've ever felt nervous walking home was when I was living in Hackney. I was with a boyfriend and we had to cross a narrow footbridge. It was difficult to avoid the group of people shouting at the two police there, as there wasn't much space. I was worried a riot was about to kick off. But I've never been worried in normal circumstances.

Life not I've! Honestly autocorrect has weird ideas.

Well Lass Ive been asked that question all my adult life living in London. I've been on M.n less than a year and am hardly ever on this board so it is definitely not .mn that alerted me to the question it's 22 years of real I've experience of being asked.

Are you nervous going home alone?

I've lived in cities since I was 18. I go on city holidays on my own. I'd never thought twice about walking home on my own at night until about a year ago. I was walking home at around 2 in the morning one Saturday night/Sunday morning and started thinking should I be doing this.

And do you know what made me think that? You won't like the answer- all the posts on FWR about how terrible and dangerous it is to be a woman.

I am currently on holiday - alone. A couple of people at work seem to think this is amazing. I just think, if I wait for someone else, whether friend or partner, if don't go alone, I'll never get to see the places I want to see. This way, I get to do what I want. I just don't really get the people who think it's amazing - but then I have met a lot of independent travellers. I suppose if you've never done it, it would be nerve-wracking, but when I've been on a group holiday, there's all the worry about what if we don't get on, and so on - that seems a far greater risk to me! (Not enough to stop me, mind you.)

I think my point is - part of it depends what you are used to.