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).

What is the typical FWR poster?

The thing is, I don't think anyone's saying that individual men are morally oblighed to set up DV support groups, or become the secretary of a campaign against rape culture or anything like that (indeed I think some feminists would argue that it's not men's place to do so).

I think the way we as men (with all our flaws and limitations) can make a the biggest difference on an individual level is by (b) not being a twat ourselves but also challenging twattishness and sexist assumptions when we come across them. That can encompass calling out misogynistic behaviour when we see it: the shitty sexist comments of our work colleagues, someone giving a woman a mouthful in the street.

I think this can also encompass making life decisions such as reducing our working hours and taking a greater share of what would be traditionally considered 'wifework' on our shoulders.

None of this is groundbreaking but I think if those of us who give a shit make these kinds of adjustments - which really isn't a huge ask - that alone can make a big difference.

I'm not trying to mansplain or tell women how to do feminism or anything like that, these are just my humble thoughts on the subject, and the approach I'm trying to follow wrt to not being a twat.

But Grimarse can you see how this position differs from 'well, I've never raped anyone, so i'm in the clear'?

That user has been banned, Polidori. I wish they could remove it completely.

Back to the topic at hand, I'll give you an example of where men are protectors of women in circumstances where it's not against a threat of violence from other men: firemen.

With the best will in the world, very, very few women, if any, would be physically strong enough to carry a person (other than a small to medium child, perhaps) down 10 flights of stairs of a burning apartment block.

Is that not a genuine example of men as protectors?

You know they're called firefighters these days, because it's a job women do too?

No Irish.

But I'll let my friend know she isn't strong enough to do the job.

Shall I also let all the female squaddies I know that actually, when they do their CFT they're not strong enough to do that either?

It's also not the topic at hand. Or even close to it. Unless you think that all women should marry firefighters?

IrishDad, the OP about relationships, not about situations where men (and also women) happen to be paid to protect other people from danger.

The 'protector' nonsense is about ownership and dependence. Women were made helpless by patriarchal society - they were denied education, work, property and the opportunity to have children on their own - so that men could ensure that they would have use of them for free. In order to preserve their own self image as good people men couched this use as 'protection' - as in, you can't do anything on your own so you need a man in order to have a functioning adult life. It was totally artificial - in a society where women are allowed access to all the same things as men they are entirely able to function without 'protectors.' Once women gain more freedom what men find is that suddenly they don't have their own personal slave any more and that doesn't suit them one bit. Hence the absolute bollocks about 'the breakdown in marriage' and how awful it is for children. Children, my fat arse. It's awful for men who don't want to have to wash their own socks.

This was an interesting thread a while back about whether people would seek out another co-habiting relationship again. The majority was no.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2580330-to-think-frankly-id-rather-be-in-my-own-that-be-with-or-live-with-a-man-ever-again?

WGTOW ? mmm...rings a bell someplace.

EBearhug
"You know they're called firefighters these days, because it's a job women do too?"

Could a female firefighter carry an unconscious adult, or even adolescent, human being down several flights of stairs of a burning building? Realistically, no. Certainly not as quickly as a male firefighter could.

The thread title is "men as protectors" in society and the thread is nine pages of rubbishing the notion. So you can't conveniently move the goalposts when someone comes up with an example of a situation where men do act as protectors, even if it is their job.

Could a female firefighter carry an unconscious adult, or even adolescent, human being down several flights of stairs of a burning building? Realistically, no. Certainly not as quickly as a male firefighter could.

On average, sometimes, possibly. I'd be shit at carrying someone down several flights of stairs. My friend Ingrid, who is a semi-professional basketballer, would be much better at it.

Why are you so keen to stick the boot into women?

A firefighter will specifically train for rescues and will not be allowed to remain in the job if unable to perform them. This isn't about the average man and average woman. I'm sure that a 45 year old fireman is slower than a 25 year old one, but provided he can still pass the physical tests, so?

Could you do that carry, irish dad? If not, then firefighters of either sex are your protectors/rescuers.

The Fire Service's official webpage giving the tests firefighters have to pass

You are factually inaccurate, Irish Dad. All firefighters, regardless of sex, have to pass these tests in order to be eligible to do the job. It may well be the case that a lower percentage of women in the general population would be capable of passing some of the tests than the percentage of men in the general population. But if you're in a fire, the fire fighters in attendance will not be randoms plucked off the street, they will be trained firefighters who have gone through the selection process for the job. Thus all female firefighters will have passed these tests - they would not have got the job otherwise.

Firefighters generally do not rescue people by carrying them down flights of stairs!

They attach people to harnesses and drag them. It is demonstrated to have a lower risk of death and disability to the person being removed from the fire.

There may be rare occasions when people have to be carried, but then there are also rare occasions when people have got to be pulled from small crawl spaces that only smaller firefighters can get into.

I can't be arsed to get into the whole thing, but just as a safety reminder, should you ever need to escape a smoke filled environment, remember smoke and heat rise. Do not carry people. Keep them close to the floor wherever possible.

Sorry, a bit off topic, but from Lurcio's link:

^Ladder Climb

This is a test of confidence whilst working at height. Candidates must demonstrate the correct ‘leg lock’ at ground level before commencing the test. Wearing full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including a harness, candidates must ascend a fully extended 13.5 metre ladder to approximately second storey height and demonstrate a ‘leg lock’.

The candidate will then be required to lean back with arms outstretched and describe a symbol shown on the floor. The candidate will then descend.^

Fuck that for a lark. Anyone who has the guts to do that has my total respect, man or woman. Do you fancy a crack at that, IrishDad?

I used to play high level rugby. I wish I had known that women can't carry people, those drills where we had to run up and down the park carrying 12 stone prop forwards over our shoulders were fucking brutal. I could have avoided all that pain by pleading my uterus!

BuffytheReasonableFeminist

"That's not protection. That's rescue."

So, rescuing a person from a fire does not constitute protecting that person from said fire? Riiiiiigggghhhhht.

Nothing screams losing an argument than quoting dictionary definitions.

You lost the argument to start with by trying to broaden it to include firemen rescuing people over their shoulders, when the thread has nothing to do with that

Own your mistake and engage with the thread properly

Irish One thing you'll find out about Buffy, is that she's not often wrong about things.