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).

Do you get scared at night without a man?

Haha, this question is the best! I mean, why would I be scared if there are no men in a three mile radius? I'm too old to fear monsters under the bed, so all I could worry about is burglars and rapists, who happen to be almost always male.

Personally, I see protection as being about caring for a person in large part and it's only recently that I've kind of been coming to suspect that men don't see protection as involving any element of emotional support.

You see protection as something a man does because he cares about you. Part of a parcel that also includes emotional support.

BUT

And that is probably the important difference: Men see women as objects (if you don't like the implication, ask the woman who recommended to stay with a rape-joke-telling asshole because "all men objectify women" why she has such grim views), so the protection is more about property and not about caring.
You make sure your money is safe, but you don't kiss the coins goodnight, if you're not Dagobert Duck. Objects do not need emotional support, so the idea of giving it would seem nonsensical to you.

Vestal "I mean, why would I be scared if there are no men in a three mile radius? "

I agree. But I have many, apparently sane, contacts, who argued this point for a long time - the fact in their heads is that there are men, I am more at risk from them (in their opinion) and they think I could mitigate that risk by keeping a man on hand.

I agree. But I have many, apparently sane, contacts, who argued this point for a long time - the fact in their heads is that there are men, I am more at risk from them (in their opinion) and they think I could mitigate that risk by keeping a man on hand.

How do they propose you find out if the man you are to keep on hand is himself a danger to you?
After all, if this was so easy, then no woman ever would be murdered by her partner or husband - while in fact, many, many, many women are

I believe it is statistically safer to be single. Someone might have posted a link with regard to that here ... I'll go look if I can find it.

The obvious solution is for men to act properly, with compassion and respect, and not to assault women. But that is easier said than done. So is separatism on some level the answer? Jeremy Corbyn took some flak for considering separate railway carriages for men and women. Are steps like this more logical, rather than men foisting themselves upon women as some sort of personal bouncer?

Vestal "I believe it is statistically safer to be single. Someone might have posted a link with regard to that here ... I'll go look if I can find it."

that's what my colleague was saying but she didn't mention an actual study - I did look and I can't find one.

"How do they propose you find out if the man you are to keep on hand is himself a danger to you?" do you know what, it doesn't seem to occur to these people that might happen.

Jeremy Corbyn took some flak for considering separate railway carriages for men and women. Are steps like this more logical, rather than men foisting themselves upon women as some sort of personal bouncer?

One flaw in this (among others) is that any woman not in a separate railway carriage who gets assaulted, hassled etc. is likely to get blamed for not being in a woman only carriage (a variation on the short skirt - asking for it - theme).

It's amazing the lengths society goes to making women responsible for men's arseholery.

I found a site with statistics:

www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

"Sixteen times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,509 victims)
than were killed by male strangers (92 victims).

For victims who knew their offenders, 61 percent (926) of female homicide victims
were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers."

Apparently, the safest thing is to not know any men, and the second safest thing is to be single.

Though I would like to know what the exact risk of being murdered as single woman or as woman in a relationship in percent is, but can't seem to find a page that states it.

thanks Vestal

my colleague seemed to think that single women were at lowest risk of attack including muggings etc. I think she's right in the sense that most muggings are targeted at young men aren't they? We weren't thinking of murder specifically tbh.

I was also worried that if I lived alone in a house, as opposed to a flat, I might be seen as an easy target so it would be interesting to know what the stats are there. but I've probably just swallowed some rubbish stories from somewhere, presumably burglars go on what they think they will get and they wouldn't get anything worth nicking from me!

Vestal I do find America a very grim place when it comes to Murder. In the year quoted by the research the FBI estimated 14,612 people were murdered which in comparison to the UK 564 for the same year makes me feel a lot safer. Actually I feel safer with DD or DS1 with me as both have studied martial arts rather DH who has no inclination to get out of a book.

As to the patriarchy I still firmly believe it is a class and religious thing rather than men in general. We need to do more in the third world where I have seen so much suffering. Ensuring money gets to women and girls so they have the opportunity to study or start businesses without relying on partners handing them things. There lies a true patriarchy unlike in the west were we have things a lot easier. DD will soon have her STEM degree and in all probability will need to choose between Germany and the US for her career. Simply because the UK has no opportunities in comparison for either sex.

The US has a lot more citizens, so of course they have higher murder numbers. (Of course, it is still pretty grim, which is because getting a gun is so easy. But you may want to google "Counting Dead Woman", a website by a woman in the UK ...)

As to the patriarchy I still firmly believe it is a class and religious thing rather than men in general.

Ah, but who invented religions? Who invented class? And why do both systems benefit men so much?

There lies a true patriarchy unlike in the west were we have things a lot easier.

Do you really think we have things easier because we don't live in a 'true' patriarchy?
Please.
We have things easier because we can exploit the rest for the world. Men who have more than enough money are simply not as determined to take it away from the women they live with.
Noblewomen had it pretty nice in the Middle Ages, they could become nuns and have the semblance of a career as book author.

However, this was all built on the backs of women from the lower classes.

We are now more removed from those women who are exploited, but do you really think we could keep our standard of living without the cheap labour from the third world?
I highly doubt it.

Single women are already at high risk of poverty in the EU, and this would of course worsen if those poor women could not buy t-shirts for 5 euros and such.

Look at this:

www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-being-single-in-america/267043/

Every woman who refuses to prostitute herself for money is, as a default, single. Therefore, single women are the basis on which we must estimate women's economic situation.

True, this is from the US, and being poor in the US is a nightmare, but this holds true for many European countries, too.

I was also worried that if I lived alone in a house, as opposed to a flat, I might be seen as an easy target so it would be interesting to know what the stats are there. but I've probably just swallowed some rubbish stories from somewhere, presumably burglars go on what they think they will get and they wouldn't get anything worth nicking from me!

I don't think burglars who are just after money (as opposed to those rapists who break into houses) go for the houses of single women, specifically.

Most choose times when the inhabitants aren't at home, anyway. So, being away and not having good security systems is more important than having a man live with you.

Besides, if you are a woman who can afford a house on her own, you can afford proper safety, too. The greatest risk to a woman's safety that results from not living with a man is probably poverty. Having to live in a high-crime area because rent is cheaper there ... I think that is the real danger.

I'm not really worried about muggings and burglars. It's just money, and I have most of my money in my bank account, anyway. As you say, nothing worth nicking there!

I'm still thinking about the original question - are men still viewed as protectors?

I think the knee jerk reaction is to say "No, durr, that's totally outdated, who even thinks that any more?".

But then I reflect on my life. My husband works away a lot, and is rarely here during the week, so I am often alone in an isolated rural house.

I am struggling to think of a friend or acquaintance who hasn't at some point asked me a variation of "When Mr Freshwater is away, aren't you afraid?". I get it at least once a fortnight.

If the concept of my husband protecting me is so out of date, what are they asking me? It's not "Aren't you lonely?" - that comes as separate question. They think I must be more afraid when alone than when he's there. The nub of it is that they think there is something that I have when he is there, that I don't have when he isn't, and it isn't just companionship, so it must be protection.

Weird, isn't it?

Vestal "Besides, if you are a woman who can afford a house on her own, you can afford proper safety, too. The greatest risk to a woman's safety that results from not living with a man is probably poverty. Having to live in a high-crime area because rent is cheaper there ... I think that is the real danger.

I'm not really worried about muggings and burglars. It's just money, and I have most of my money in my bank account, anyway. As you say, nothing worth nicking there!"

this is a tough one - I don't live in a low crime area but statistically still less likely to be mugged than a man?

Re muggings and burglaries, my worry is that they will be accompanied by violence, sorry, I should have made that clear.

I'm interested in what you mean by "proper safety" - I guess you mean alarm systems for a house and so on? My worry is that someone will want to break in while I'm there though - I wouldn't necessarily have a burglar alarm activated while at home.

Freshwater - exactly! I can imagine you're asked that question a lot. And presumably that narrative "you should be scared" is based on a false idea of lone women being targeted?

I am struggling to think of a friend or acquaintance who hasn't at some point asked me a variation of "When Mr Freshwater is away, aren't you afraid?". I get it at least once a fortnight.

Yup, same with the military or any other job where the man in the family is away for chunks of time.

But men aren't seen by society as protectors, so it's all fine.

Alarm systems, yes, but also windows that are harder to break open, that kind of stuff. They are advertised with the claim that burglars will give up after half an hour or so, because they don't want to be seen by the neighbours.

I don't think the risk of a burglar breaking in during the day while you are at home, is that high. As I said, those who are just after money have no interest in you being at home.

There are of course men who break into women's homes to rape, but they are a tiny minority of rapists, the risk that the intimate partner is a rapist is much higher.

I guess what I would like to know is whether a man in the house actually has a protective effect at all.

Like, of the women who are raped or murdered by a man who is not their husband or intimate partner, how many of them are single? (One would of course have to exclude those instances where single women are murdered as direct result of looking for a partner, like murdered by new male acquaintances. )

If a man in the house discourages rapists from breaking in, you would expect that of the women who are murdered by a stranger or a man they just know superficially, most of them are single.

*If the concept of my husband protecting me is so out of date, what are they asking me? It's not "Aren't you lonely?" - that comes as separate question. They think I must be more afraid when alone than when he's there. The nub of it is that they think there is something that I have when he is there, that I don't have when he isn't, and it isn't just companionship, so it must be protection.

Weird, isn't it?*

Yep, weird. Few of the women I know would say their DH protects them in this sense, and few of the men would say they protect their DH.
But when there's a noise in the house at night, it's always the DH who is sent down to investigate.
Even amongst staunch, independent women.
Unless they're single.

But when there's a noise in the house at night, it's always the DH who is sent down to investigate.Even amongst staunch, independent women.

Err no, actually.

Most noises at night fall in the "probably nothing, but better to know for sure" category, where you switch the light on to convince yourself that it is really nothing, and then go back to sleep.

If I was sure that there's a burglar, I would not send my husband to investigate (because if I had a husband, he'd be a rare jewel and I'd want to keep him), but call the police.

In my house it's both of us who go and look.

However, on a practical note, DP is 6' tall and I'm a dumpy 5', so if intimidation was the point, then DP would be the sensible choice because he's bigger, not because he's a man.

My DP has been away for weeks at a time too, and just like you, I've been asked if I was afraid, if I wanted to go and stay with them etc.

Err no, actually.

Err, yes actually.
I was referring to the people I know.

Err no, actually.

Agreed

I think the world is changing. I know for a fact that my wife expects me to go downstairs and see what a noise might be. My mum would have sent my dad when he was alive. But I know my daughter would be first in line in her own home. So actually, it depends.

OK, MrNosey. I didn't read that as only relating to your friends - thought it was a general statement.

(Would be interesting to know though if you thought it would apply as a general statement).

I've often worked late at night and would frequently be asked if my partner would be meeting me at the station/bus stop. I always say of course not, but they'll ask me am I not afraid to walk home alone? It is a prevalent idea that a woman needs protecting. When I was younger I remember friends' parents who thought we were safer when there would be boys as part of the group. When there were no boys there was always a 'look after each other' talk. I remember this because it shocked me at the time. I grew up with a single mum and no brothers so the idea of men as protectors was new to me.

However, being out with a man does deter certain men from offering unwanted attention. I've been followed and harassed quite a lot when travelling at night but never when I've been with a man. They assume I'm his property, I guess, as when they've not realised I was with a man and started harassing me, they always apologise to him when he arrives.

I don't think it's just feminists saying to girls and women to be careful when out at night. Feminists or not there was a 'text me when you're home' rule that I don't think the boys ever thought about. I've never treated men any differently and walked friends home if I thought they were a bit too drunk etc. Unfortunately a colleague I helped out in this way attacked me once, but rightly or wrongly I don't think it has changed the way I behave.