This is an excellent discussion thread, thanks to WarMare, Pax, Phoebe, Iam3KBs, Vanya
and all our other lady members. I'm learning quite a bit.
Re: Men as Protectors
The development of the role throughout history is, I think, based on the paradigm of survival. When events force you to extremes, a racial imperative comes out. I like the way Robert A. Heinlein expressed it in Time Enough for Love
All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can -- and must -- be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly -- and no doubt will keep on trying.
The male as "protector" is one that from a racial imperative viewpoint is logical. Once he has passed along his genes to a new generation (in one or more offspring) his existence is relatively unimportant. It is certainly best if he can stick around until the offspring are self-sufficient, but not necessary.¹
Originally Posted by Pax
I wish that were always true. From my perspective, a lot of guys who say they want their wives, girlfriends, female friends able & willing to protect themselves, aren't quite so enthusiastic when the women really become self-aware and self-protective.
Perhaps I'm one of those "unique" males. I met my wife at the police academy, helped her learn to shoot as well or better than me and never felt a twinge. I encouraged her to take Tae-Kwon-Do and to become an instructor for the Koga Defense techniques at the academy.
At least she kept me around because I can lift heavy things and kill spiders.
Originally Posted by phoebe
I also had a deep fear of guns. They signified violence. They seem manly. They are noisy. They were unpredictable. They can hurt you. And I have lots of associations to guns and rednecks, uncultured, uncivilized people.
"Thinking, intellectual people don't use guns."
"Women don't use guns."
We use our brains to avoid conflict and use negotiation or discussion to resolve problems, not violence.
And people chide me when I don't laugh at stand-up comedy that portrays "rednecks with guns".
There has been a movement in this country since the 1920's to portray users of firearms or those who resort to violence - even when necessary
as uncouth, uncultured, uncivilized, redneck neanderthals. The early progressive
party claimed that with our brains we could "choose" to avoid such brutish behaviors. These so-called progressives have tried to instill into us such silly notions as "violence never solves anything" or "fighting back only lowers you to their
Back in my college days, a young female student studying in her off campus apartment found herself confronting a obvious rapist coming through a window to the 1 bedroom apt. She prudently grabbed her boyfriend's .270 and warned him to leave. He tried to talk his way into the place but she would have none of it. He finally exited and ran.
But the surprising part was when she related this in our weekly Friday pizza gathering (about 10-15 of us) the women in the group disapproved
of her using a gun. They said things like "couldn't you have talked him out of it without the gun?
" or "You should have reasoned with him to leave instead.
I think this supports Phobe's remark that women don't use guns. I think women often place too much faith in their ability to "talk things through" or "reason with someone" because that's worked in the past. The failure is to realize that it does not always work when someone is intent on committing a violent act.
Originally Posted by Iam3KBs
To me, part of being not just female but a lady is to have enough self-respect to know that I have a right to say NO and make that NO be serious. Part of being a lady is the self-assurance to know in my bones that anyone who lays an unwanted hand on me has forfeited his right to continue existing.
I agree wholeheartedly. But the punishment must fit the crime. A slap is certainly warranted for unwanted contact. But cutting his throat for a fanny-pat is excessive and is bound to get you talked about.²
Originally Posted by Iam3KBs
I think that my generational sisters and our daughters are missing something very valuable in the loss of the ladylike slap that our mothers and grandmothers understood was their absolute right to deal out to any man who "got fresh" (and the equal understanding among the men that anyone who wished to call himself a gentleman would, first, refrain from ever giving a woman cause to slap him and, second, intervene on the lady's behalf if a slapping situation was obviously developing).
In days of "civility" long past, a woman in a public venue knew that slapping a man's face would acquire the attention of other men. This usually allowed her to exit the situation somewhat gracefully, knowing that other men would not allow
the slapped man to follow her. (Or the reverse, the man would walk away while other men watched to ensure he behaved correctly).
Unfortunately, today's progressive-minded
prosecutors and others will claim that said slap is "violence" or "domestic violence" and merits the same kind of punishment as a fist to the nose. These same people will prosecute the gentlemen who restrain an angered "slapee" for assault, battery or unlawful restraint.
In an effort to "remove violence" from our lives these "progressive thinkers" have made it a crime to forcibly prevent someone from committing a crime in the first place. For bullies and abusers, the threat of retaliation-in-kind from a capable person is intimidating (they prefer defenseless and helpless victims).
Our culture in the last 30-40 years has been "pacificed" to stand by
while people abuse each other. We hear it almost every time the news reports a successful self-defense situation - police remind all of us not to fight with a robber but comply with them for your own safety.
" or "Police say it's best not to get involved but to call 9-1-1 instead.
In the early part of the 20th Century, a man assaulting a lone woman did so at his own risk. It was likely that she could kill him with near impunity.
¹ This is not advocating leaving unsupported children in one's wake. A man should be present to support, educate and love his children as long as possible.
² A strike to the solar plexus is appropriate, but a knee or foot to the groin is a lot more satisfying.