Men as protectors

That's, I think that is probably what Op meant, deterrent being part of the protection men are associated with.

Gggrrr, deterrent.

If I was walking home alone at night, a man would be a useful deterant rather than a protector.

I feel I'm repeating myself but to answer questions

Man as protector in UK society - I am frequently asked by some friends, family (serial offenders), colleagues, neighbors even random folk at social things
Are you nervous going home alone?
Are you nervous living alone?
Do you get scared at night without a man?

The subtext is "are you worried about male harassment/crime " and to a large extent i don't blame them because they've swallowed those lies but I do get cross because it's like saying "you must get yourself a man or you'll never be free of male harassment/crime". Um...!

As for people thinking less of singletons, the barrage of stupid questions and concerns proves that. I cba to detail them. Well here's my favourite for a laugh "but you're pretty, you should have a boyfriend". i usually look innocent and say "oh dear, is that the law?"

I didn't mean single men and women needed a separate topic btw, sorry, I just meant singles. A single male friend recently had his dad tell him "at least if you were divorced we could tell people you had tried to have a relationship". I mean FFS. Another guy I know has just sorted his third divorce and is taking a leaf out of my book and opting to stay single. He's been asked "but will your life still have meaning" and "don't you think you should get settled?"

I really must try to dig out the statistics mentioned by my colleague.

To focus on the OP point, I do think a lot of women know, deep down, that's its protection from men because of men but they don't want to lump men together which I do understand.

Lorelei, sorry if I have mislead you. I have found the whole thread confusing. The OP seems to have done the usual thing of picking an old, outdated concept and tried to shoehorn it into current thinking, in order to present yet another weapon of the Patriarchy designed to crush women under our heel

Sorry Lorelei but I tend to agree with that.

"why is it still perceived by a significant proportion of people that women without a man are lacking? "

Is it perceived that way? By whom?

And if it is, (and I'm not sure it is a given) then I agree the people who are most likely to think that are those women who make such a big thing of being a Mrs.

Ah, okay. Well, she doesn't appear to be here now. For my part, I think it's crap. The idea of man as protector does not prevail in current UK society. But I think she suggests it as a device for yet another thread about male violence as a tool of female oppression.

And as you say yourself, the idea of either gender being single and happy is an anathema to some people. Why do you think it's a separate thread for men though? Why do the reasons differ?

OP also asked "why is it still perceived by a significant proportion of people that women without a man are lacking? "

I would love to know the answer to this one. and add that many women seem to be horrified by the idea of a happy single woman. Though as a pp said, men are starting to get this crap too. That's a whole separate thread though.

I thought the OP was simply asking "why does the idea of man as protector prevail, when the need for protection is usually caused by men"? Which seems to me a very reasonable question.

Lorelei, sorry if I have mislead you. I have found the whole thread confusing. The OP seems to have done the usual thing of picking an old, outdated concept and tried to shoehorn it into current thinking, in order to present yet another weapon of the Patriarchy designed to crush women under our heel.

Oh no my last post was to Grim! Sorry.

Right, so what's with all the red herrings? I find this board very confusing. I feel like I should learn and benefit from it but it always goes weird.

Sorry it was to the OP - the mobile site didn't load properly so I only saw the first couple of posts

My wife would take them both with one arm tied behind her back...

Grim, you don't think it's up to men to protect women if bears and wolves turn up....?

Lorelei, no - not since bears and wolves stopped attacking our wattle huts. A relationship between two people should be for mutual benefit, providing love, care, support and an equal division of workload.

Grim, you don't think men are supposed to be protecting women do you?

Chrysanthemum sorry are you addressing me or the OP?

Or, women actually need protection from the men who are supposed to be protecting them!

Doesn't it relate to the idea of male violence? That a woman with a man is 'protected' and she 'belongs' to a man? Whereas a single woman does not have that barrier. So men as a protector concept is a false argument- women need protecting by men from men

In case it wasn't clear, I was asking Singing Sixpence if that's what she interpreted from the blog she mentioned re women being "open" to protection.

It has been stated on here many, many times that a man cannot be a feminist. I would not argue the point. It isn't a case of me being honest.

patriarchy always had to bribe women for patriarchy-conforming behaviour

Could you give a couple of examples? Why doesn't it just continue with the oppression, with the threat of violence in the background?

Okay, I will come clean. I am not a feminist. I can't be, I am a man.

At least you are honest.

The Patriarchy seems to have taken an institution that was deliberately designed by men to transfer 'ownership' of a woman from father to husband, and allowed it to be bastardised into an institution that confers all sorts of rights and privileges onto those women. Is it's grip slipping?

No, patriarchy always had to bribe women for patriarchy-conforming behaviour. Else we might have seen through it much sooner. (And I am sure many women noticed already in the Middle Ages)

Okay, I will come clean. I am not a feminist. I can't be, I am a man. What you are telling me just confirms that the catch-all 'It was the Patriarchy what dun it' does not always hold true. The Patriarchy seems to have taken an institution that was deliberately designed by men to transfer 'ownership' of a woman from father to husband, and allowed it to be bastardised into an institution that confers all sorts of rights and privileges onto those women. Is it's grip slipping?

Also, because marriage is a sufficient benefit to men for them to compromise in order to perpetuate it.

Grimarse Maybe because women fought for these rights to exist within marriage:

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

Now feel free to tell me how cohabiting is materially better for women. Not in terms of getting full Good Feminist Brownie Points for not partaking in the institute of marriage, in actual financial terms.