Men as protectors

I don't doubt what you are saying, IPity, but seems counter-intuitive that an institution like marriage would benefit women in any way. How has the Patriarchy allowed that to come about?

Grimarse Why would they be better off without it? Fine words from feminists butter no parsnips when it comes to the financial implications of not being married or having any sort of legal provision.

Women operating under the mistaken belief that Common -Law wife is a legally recognised status are not better off then those who are married, quite the contrary.

The 'legal protection' of an inherently patriarchal institution. The sort of institution you'd assume they would be better off avoiding.

Not getting married doesn't mean women are staying single. Instead it usually means they are cohabiting and often unknowingly forgoing many of the legal protections provided by marriage. They are in fact, worse off.

I don't know about protecting. I don't see my relationship in that way. I don't ask to be picked up by him to avoid walking home alone. I walk home, I get taxis if it's raining.

If "protection" means I'll still have a roof over my head and money in my pocket if I were to lose my job, then I've accepted protection but the same would apply to him if he were to lose his job.

Thanks Lass
Singing This "accepting protection" thing, is it things like getting them to pick you up from the station so you don't walk home alone etc?

Sorry Lorelei both statements were Vestal's

It's a deal with the devil, isn't it? Accepting a man's protection. In the patriarchal sense at least.

But if he sees himself as always being on standby to do this for you (or simply preemptively protecting you by his mere presence) he probably feels more entitled to his female partner's emotion work that he will see as being his due as part of the exchange.

Why should he get anything in exchange of protecting a woman from something (male violence) she would not be at danger from in the first place if he wouldn't help to uphold the system of patriarchy?

Have you read "Loving to Survive"? I have it as pdf, it must be floating around on the interwebs somewhere, but I can't remember where I got it. It discusses the "men as protectors" thing. Very interesting.

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.

And actually, this is quite strange. I was about to start a thread about the exact same thing as I read a lot of dating and relationship research. I read Evan Marc Katz's blog from time to time and he is one for saying how much most men want to protect their women and that women should be open to this (I think - hope I haven't misrepresented his views). And I always feel like writing an essay about how this male desire would seem to be invisible to so many of the women in relationships with them but then I think that's because his view of protection is likely at odds with the view that many women have (emotional support and caregiving etc).

Jobseeker what are you saying? Are you saying that the posters on here won't experience male violence?

I think this is one of the reasons so many marriages end in divorce. Because women see protection in a way that men don't. I personally see protection as being about my (currently hypothetical) partner caring for me and therefore making sure the harsh realities of life do not wear me down to the point that I can't function. It is protection of your mental health and wellbeing. But I don't think most men see protection in this way as is evidenced by all of the studies that show just how little emotion work most men do in relationships. I think the "protecting the little woman from physical danger" is far more convenient as many men will see it as a contribution to a relationship that conveniently does not require anything from them most of the time. I've certainly never been in any situation where I felt my personal safety was at risk when a boyfriend was around to step in. But if he sees himself as always being on standby to do this for you (or simply preemptively protecting you by his mere presence) he probably feels more entitled to his female partner's emotion work that he will see as being his due as part of the exchange.

Interesting stats on UK marriage trends;
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10886172/Half-of-20-year-olds-will-never-marry-in-devastating-trend.html

...the greatest decline in marriage has taken place among those in their twenties. In 1970, the peak year for marriage, 564,818 men and women aged 25 got married. In 2010, just 56,598 did, a fall of 90 per cent.

^Today, only five per cent of men and ten per cent of women aged 25 are married, as compared to 60 per cent of men and 80 per cent of women forty-four years ago.
When the trends are applied to today’s 20 year olds, figures show that only 52 per cent of those men and 53 per cent of women are expected to ever marry.^

If anyone is still peddling this 'men as protector' nonsense, who is listening? I'd suggest no-one.

@Wind, it does seem an outdated concept, in the UK at least.
I think protection is less against physical threats and more against circumstance - better as a team, more financial security with two incomes.
But more and more people live as singles, so it's not essential for anybody.

Lass, can't see a blanket statement anywhere in what I wrote.

Sorry, in my second paragraph I should have said in this country. In too many countries the protector role is a necessary and urgent consideration, sadly.

The protector theme is trotted out because telling women they need to find and effective protector is more beneficial to men than admitting that the behaviour and attitudes of a lot of men is vile and needs to change.

However, I do wonder how many men and women still genuinely consider that an important part of a man's role. Isn't protection nowadays more likely to be mutual, and as much about practical and emotional support as anything else?

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.

Read what you wrote. Not "for some women" but a blanket statement that becoming a widow will be a release. Sorry but I don't agree going oh NAMALT etc helps. Goodness me if a man were to come on here and make such a sweeping generalisation about women I doubt if that defence would get him anywhere.

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

Not even NAMALT here - Just the odd exception might exist.

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

Exactly.

Feminism isn't really concerned with those women who are happy and content, is it?

Isn't it?

^^ pop ffs. Poo would be entirely too much info

lorelei and vestal you make excellent points. I have to poo off now. Be back later.

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

cross posted - thank you for that.

Most women who read these narratives will not walk across south Africa and will generally experience men who don't inflict violence on them, will not be killed or raped if they venture out of their house, and will not be called a slag if they have sex with more than one man in their lifetime, but to read feminist boards, no one would ever go out, all women would be dead or traumatised, and no woman would get promoted. The reverse is true of all of these, so why embed fear into women so aggressively? What's the point?

the main reason I posted was about the "protection" thing - I think that thing I was told about single women being at lowest risk of attack is very interesting.

I think it is true that many people see the "man as protection" thing while never acknowledging where the main threat comes from -and I thought that was the conundrum the OP was trying to highlight.

Given the amount of "you're brave" I've heard over the years, I think it's fair to say there is a perception that being single is incredibly hard whereas it's actually easier in many ways. My exes have been lovely guys btw ,I didn't go off men because my exes were horrible.

I think there's a lot of people who really suit being single and I'm surprised that what's going on in Japan isn't happening more here. Or is it? I don't know, perhaps a lot of the people hanging around on dating sites and not wanting to commit would really rather be single but social stigma bothers them?