Men as protectors

[SoftDriftedSnow]

Is it ever really true, except in their own minds?

A new study shows that marriage (or rather, the expectations of marriage) is detrimental to women. www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/22/wives-become-less-stressed-after-their-husbands-die-study-finds/

When you add in the rates of violence against women by men, why does this myth of men being protectors prevail?

And if it doesn't (not convinced) why is it still perceived by a significant proportion of people that women without a man are lacking? Maybe that's simply still function of perceived worth being determined by the man you get?

Rambling, but thinking. (and I am pretty much convinced the answer is "patriarchy", to nail my colours to the mast. And, yes, I know that many of you don't know men who think like that).

OutsSelf Were you protecting your exBF? Are you sure you are not a man?

Or perhaps you were rescuing him?

due to my ladybrain.

I was tidying the front room, rather than rescuing anyone. Protecting us both from the landlord's judgey pants, at a stretch?

I can't believe this carrying issue is still up for debate.

I wish we could have a sticky at the top of FWR explaining to people how to aid others in the event of a fire.

There is a really bizarre conflict between the wishes of MRAs and trade unionists. MRAs seem hell bent on encouraging fire men, bin men, male steel workers, male builders and male farmers to carry out physical tasks in the most stupid, irresponsible and dangerous ways possible in order to demonstrate (and be poster boys for) the masculinity and superiority of all men.

Trade unionists, on the other hand, want to improve working conditions and prevent employers from making employees carry out tasks in an unsafe manner.

MRAs claim to be in favour of men's rights, but seem to be actively working against them.

Am I the only person on this thread so far who actually has been carried downstairs by emergency services?

Not fire, fortunately, but paramedics. (So probably won't "count"). They wouldn't let me walk as they didn't trust me not to fall downstairs. They were women. They put me on a chair & carried me down together, so that probably won't count either. Though I reckon either could have got me down on her own, if she'd felt the need to show off.

Indeed. At work (where there is some heavy lifting), none of us is meant to lift something weighing more than 25kg by ourselves, so physical fitness beyond an average adult just isn't an issue. Obviously there are different requirements for being a firefighter, but it's not beyond the abilities of some women.

There's a limit for paramedics.

They have bariatric services for when someone is too heavy to lift. A team is called out.

Can I just stop and love the notion Of Outs tidying her BF away?

Just resurrecting this because I happened to go round a mining museum this weekend - one of the displays was on the mine's rescue team, and included the stretcher, which was designed to be carried by 5 or 6 men (and they would have been men in this instance, because the display was of stuff dating from the 1950s). Why so many? Because it would be bloody stupid to put your own and the casualty's life at risk demonstrating you could carry him hundreds of yards when in fact it wouldl be much safer for a team to do it.

(Interestingly, the ex miner who took us round was quite amusing on the subject of the work the women and young boys did on the surface in the 19th century - breaking ore by hand using hammers - he said the boys were often glad when they were old enough to go underground because the surface work was actually more physically demanding).

Mountain rescue teams use 6-8 people to carry a stretcher, and for one carry they will have two teams that swap over frequently (so 12+ people in total) as it's dangerous and tiring to do it for too long.

Lurcio - ISTR it was a moral panic rather than concern for women's welfare that led to women being banned from working underground in UK mines.

m.historyextra.com/feature/scandal-female-miners-19th-century-britain

Read the article. Well!!!!

I read the article too, and what I saw in it was that some of the reformers made absurd exaggerations about undressed women suffering moral corruption, when really their objective was just to get the women out of the mines. They knew what might appeal to the Victorian public! Describing women driven by poverty to do miserable dangerous work certainly wouldn't do it.

Yes, but there are factory acts from the start of the 19th century (not that they made much difference till the mid century.) So the 1842 Mines Act didn't come out of the blue - there was some movement to improve working conditions all round; you also get some industrialists trying to improve housing and so on (model villages). Some of this was because some recognised that healthier workers would be more productive, but I think some also recognised the workforce was human and deserved a minimum standard of living.

But there were also those who were outraged at women working topless with their skirts tucked between their legs to deal with the heat of working in the Mines.

Not that this has much to do with men as protectors, except I think it was very much a Victorian ideal in some ways, and all the legislation around mines, factories, public health and so on was a part of that - protecting those who couldn't protect themselves, though not necessarily always as we think of protection now.