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).

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.

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.

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

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.

There is exactly that assumption being made.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

Isn't it?

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.

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?

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.

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

@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.