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).

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

Sorry Lorelei both statements were Vestal's

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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?

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)

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?

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.

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

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

Chrysanthemum sorry are you addressing me or the OP?

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

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.