Why do women think they need men to protect them? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
62Opinion
Don't be too feminist, now. It's not pathetic.
Sure, some girls are weak and do need someone to fend for them, but some girls (such as yourself) can take care of themselves.
Still, there is nothing wrong with having someone who is able and willing to protect you as well.
The whole "protective man" thing goes back to the old ages, because that was a general role of a guy, and there is nothing wrong with keeping that today.
Yes, it is good to be able to defend yourself and I applaud you for taking the steps necessary to be ready, but if you've got a strong boyfriend there's nothing wrong in letting him protect you as well.
Sometimes, it just boils down to their ego. Guys want to be important and they want to impress you. And you know what? If they love you, they want to protect you. That's not such a bad thing, is it? (:
yep guys are necessary.
Ok harsh much? but yes in a sense you are right. But majority of women aren't like you. In fact there should be more women that do this however speaking in the sense of reality to put it out in plain and simple, at the end of everynight we want our man by our sides because they not only know how to love us but will protect us over their own. its comfort and the feeling of knowing he will always be there for you. You can be independent as much as you want. there's nothing pathetic about a man holding his ground to protect a women he loves. And there's nothing wrong with a women wanting that.
Nothing wrong with protecting each other no. A woman hiding behind a man or getting into a relationship so she can get protection like a prison bitch there IS something very wrong with that.
Ok well what do you do if your stick thin, lanky girl? shoot some pepper spray at him and run? some girls aren't fit to protect themselves but like I said this can go 2 ways. They should, but they don't want to
A lot of men are stick thin as well but they are expected to stand up and fight even if it's suicide. If your too small arm your self, take precautions, what ever it takes. Don't be a user selecting your lover as someone to hide behind.
Okay good example, but a stick thin guys guna call his buddies for help majority of the time, and unless he knows any type of mma, then he's screwed against a guy bigger than he is. YOur making it seem like women are trying to be users? No I'm saying we want our man to stick up for us. I myself would never "hide", but stand beside him. If he stands up for me I would be fighting with him that's who I am. I'm clearly implying woman like the feeling of protection and support is all.
PATHETIC! PATHETIC! Seesh shf84, can't you get another schtick? You don't get to decide another couples' dynamic. You don't get to decide that because you have a different life experience than another, that THEIR DECISIONS which aren't hurting a danged soul, are more valid than theirs. Honey0509 has a great answer. Those that want protection SHOULD NEVER be demeaned. Nor should those that don't.
Ok let's try vile that's a good word for it. And you keep saying that over and over "you don't get to decide other peoples dynamic" like you think any thing a person concocts is just fine no mater what it is. Seems the emperor has no clothes.
No vile is NOT a better word for it. In what world do you live in which DEMEANING women is acceptable.
Absolutely I DO think that whatever manner of lifestyle a person "concocts" for themselves AS LONG AS IT IS ADULT, CONSENSUAL and NOT HURTING ANYONE, is ABSOLUTELY #&@! fine. So again I'll say YOU don't get to determine how people live. You can voice an opinion, but thankfully your ideas DON'T get the say in how people live.
Oh but my ideas do get a say in how people live, how do you think politicians get elected to office or whackos get to turn our university sociology departments into bizarre cults with their own code words and rituals. Ideas just by opening their mouth and speaking or pressing buttons on a keyboard and it sure has affected a lot of people hasn't it?
"Oh but my ideas do get a say in how people live,"
You give yourself too much credit. We are all aware that you've had little say in the relationships that people enter into.
But, since you feel you have a say, what should happen to a "PATHETIC" (as you call her) woman when she chooses to let someone protect her?
She should be able to live in a world in which such behavior is not acceptable and is seen as what it is. If she persists in the behavior it's her problem but we don't need a society that presents such behavior as acceptable or encourages women to engage in it.
You keep using the term behavior in a manner that implies she is doing something wrong, even morally. You've even compared a woman choosing to be defended with her choosing to commit a crime. Let's get this straight, it is not a crime and it is not morally wrong for a woman to choose to be defended.
The kind of society we need is one that allows all persons, including women, to make their own decisions. I trust the individual woman to decide what is right for her. You don't trust her.
I trust any one to decide what's right for them until they start making choices that are obviously self destructive unlike you I can see reality for what it is.
And it is morally wrong to pick your lover based on their ability to defend you..
"I trust any one to decide what's right for them until they start making choices that are obviously self destructive"
Actually wanting to be protected is the opposite of self-destructive.
"And it is morally wrong to pick your lover based on their ability to defend you."
No it's not. But again you are using a straw man, because NO ONE HERE BUT YOU is making this claim. Just keep making stuff up, because you have no actual argument.
That's what the original post is about women thinking they need men to protect them becoming involved with men out of seeking protection. And that's wrong it's not a persons job to do any thing based on their sex including protect someone, protection shouldn't even be a consideration
"That's what the original post is about women thinking they need men to protect them"
This part was from the OP.
"becoming involved with men out of seeking protection."
This part was not. You added this.
"And that's wrong"
No it's not.
"it's not a persons job to do any thing based on their sex including protect someone,"
Agreed, it's no their JOB.
"protection shouldn't even be a consideration"
In your relationships, sure. Other people get to decide what they want in a relationship.
Other people might decide a lot of things but it it's wrong then others will pick up on that and say so. You think every thing goes, but it doesn't
"Other people might decide a lot of things but it it's wrong then others will pick up on that and say so."
Conversely other people can believe or claim it is wrong when it is not.
"You think every thing goes, but it doesn't "
I can only conclude you are deliberately lying at this point. I have said NUMEROUS times that everything doesn't go. And NUMEROUS times you keep lyingly claiming I said whatI did no say.
So being protected is immoral, but lying is moral. Interesting.
Bottom line you can't see how things that are immoral hurt others unless their is a direct cause and effect relationship. looking at a potential mate and saying "oh , I bet he could protect me" is prostitution for protection but I doubt you have a problem with prostitution for cash either, because it " hurts no one"
Answerer: Just as a man can call his buddies, what's wrong with a girl calling her girls? Please before you respond think about it vice versa
it's evolution and it applies to the rule of jungle, large predators are usually scared of things bigger than them unless they hunt in groups and since humans stand on two feet the usually appear pretty large and since men are taller than women they appear more threatening.
so woman are hardwired to like big tall man since it will be seen as a higher chance of survival
lets say you encounter a bear now your best chance would be to scared it off by appearing taller than it you could do this put putting your arms up in the air or if you have a child put it on top of your shoulders.
Now if you had a big tall guy with you with a loud and deep voice your chances of surviving this this situation is increased.
That's how people thought way back then.
Women need us to protect them because we are stronger physically and emotionally. (Well at least most of us.) We know you women are amazing and we feel the need to protect you. I think its pathetic that it seems like we always are the ones that have to initiate a conversation with you women and ask you out instead of it being the other way around. Don't you know that we are intimidated by your looks. Women aren't as intimidated by looks than we are. Why can't you women do the simple thing of asking us out and in return we will protect you from harm?
This roots back to primitive level when a woman wouldn't touch the ancestors of cockroaches and the man would come and smash it to death, kidding (Well, it could be true).
They just want everything to be all right. It just means she wants someone to talk reassuringly to her, look after her safety, and assure her when she needs it that things are going to be OK.
It also means coming to her protection, when she needs it. If someone is being a jerk to her, standing up for her. If she’s being threatened, fighting for her. Letting her know that someone will fight for her, and nothing will get in her way.
They are different, overtly emotional (You see it when the guy meets the girl finally in the end at the theatre). They just like to be cared about. And we like doing that!
It's a myth that women are like that. Women are not children and not so immature as to need a man to be their father. And the only men that like doing that are the ones who are too insecure to deal with a healthy woman. They want a woman who will defer to them be dependent on them and never question them. Makes things awfully convenient for an immature man.
Wow that's a stereotype right there. I don't know any females who fit any of those descriptions. If a guy tried to protect us when we didn't need it, we sure as hell would be p*ssed off.
Ok, I see what you're getting at. But your attitude towards it is the reason chivalry is dying off, yet you complain about that too.
Yes, I can kick someone's ass if I have to. I can be quite frightening and systematic too.
BUT! I don't care to act that way, it's not ladylike. I like to feel feminine sometimes (something which is also dwindling with chivalry). I know my the limits of my self protection. I appreciate the natural protective instinct of a man. If he doesn't have it around you, he 1. Is not well raised (gentleman) & 2. Doesn't care about you.
Also a man's protective aura "eases" a woman. I feel more relaxed or calm. And if I have anxiety, nothing eases it better then a cuddle with someone I respect and like. Also, it regulates (or resets) your hormones when his pheromones interact with yours and your skin reacts to his. Being in a relaxed state, a woman is more likely to be fertile and have sex. There's a lot of science behind it, search it up.
Ive taken several different forms of fighting, and I can take care of myself in a fight. Its not a matter of a girl NEEDING the guy to protect her, and not taking matters into their own hands, I definitely do that just fine. But it does make me feel cared for when my boyfriend will stand up for me in an instant or fight a guy who doesn't know how to back off, its like although I CAN take care of myself its really cool to know that he cares enough, like since I'm his girlfriend he's not ashamed to let other people know, infact he's proud of it. But I got in a fight with a girl who was a total slut and wouldn't leave my boyfriend alone even after he said no, so its not so much about being helpless as it is about being there for each other as bestfriends who always cover for the other, lol teamwork :)
I agree with you that every woman should know how to defend themselves. I mean a lot of women don't even know how to throw a decent punch. When they are in fights they slap and pull hair. That won't work on men. That's probably why a lot of women get attacked because they don't know how to defend themselves and men know they can overpower them. Good for you for fighting back.Maybe you should teach your girlfriends how to get in that mindset to defend themselves. Teach them how to throw a decent punch.That's what I did with my girlfriends now they know how to defend themselves without a man.
Nice! I love a woman who can fight! And I love girls who can kick ass, but they say they can't, that is sexy.
Why can't it be the opposite? Men like women who can kick ass. And it would save us the trouble of having to be "protective" the whole freaking time. =)
I think you're cool. but IF you are unfeminine that is another story. Hate butches who hate men just because they think they are doing something political.
The ability to kick ass does not inherently mean one is feminine or masucline. =)
Respect!
(btw I am not some fag/gay weakling guywho is into dominatrix lol.. I just think it's cool that girls can also bring it.)
Well I guess a lot of times a guy has an advantage. I've been in tae kwon do for many years now but I know that if a guy was twice my weight, there's no way I'd be able to get him off me if he pinned my arms and legs down with his body. I had a guy say to me "You know if I wanted to, I can easily take what I wanted from you (sexually)". You know what the sad thing was? It was true. Not because of our genders but because this guy has boxed for 8 years, played lacrosse and football for 5 and hockey for 4 years. Maybe I'm one of the quickest people in my tae kwon do class but if that guy attacked me and I didn't dodge even one hit from that guy. I'm not naive to think that I'd be able to stay on my feet. I'm not saying that I think women need protecting. I'm saying that a lot of guys who attack us on the street are strong and pepper spray is not going to help us if he comes from behind. He locks your arms behind your back, you want to flip him? He's twice your weight, you can't.
Its ironic when women are generally stronger than men is every way except for 2. They tend not to be able to control their emotions and therefore tend not to be logical and we have can generally lift more weight. Although a lot of the women's self defense class are completely useless and will only worsen the situation. Hitting a guy in the groin will only activate an adrenaline increase making faster, stronger, more violent and more resilient or temporary immune to pain. Unless you make him throw up or bleed to death internally. Women are genetically built for combat. just make sure you learn a good art not all martial arts are equal.
wing-chung kung fu is especially good for a female because of the speed it requires.
"Its ironic when women are generally stronger than men is every way except for 2. They tend not to be able to control their emotions and therefore tend not to be logical and we have can generally lift more weight."
:)What other strengths then reason & strength are you considering? -seem to be pretty major strengths & Not true that emotion cancels out reason, If you are able to control your emotions with reason you are way better of. If you avoid/dont understand your & others emotion you can not be rational.
not all girls want to beat but up people some are scared as hell walking be them self an yes it would be nice if they can take care of it them self the rape crime rate will go down a lot but think about it we all can't be the same some guys are kinda like girls and only the brave can fight for your country...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DjIg_IXyYsnot everyone is made to fight an sometimes girls who are strong kinda scare me and people are the way they are so they can attract what they want because that's how they feel that's who they are an guys naturally( <<<<<note its in our gene to want to protect) so its not pathetic its nature at work but don't get mad be happy life is too short to feel bad or p*ssed so find away to laugh like check out this link and feel better (from the brave and very bored):D
because no matter how tough you think you are, a fully grown man is still likely to be stronger than you. I commend you for taking the steps to become stronger and be able to protect yourself, but that doesn't mean that you are as strong as a man. I feel a lot safer when I'm with a man because guys who attack women are cowards. they attack women partly because they know women are physically weaker and easier to conquer. when you are with a man, coward ass attackers are less likely to try you because they don't want to deal with a man's strength.
I could hang with a bunch of guys that are bigger than me for the same reason but what would that make me? A coward who is always trying to cover his ass and USING his friends to do it.
Your guy friends wouldn't care about you in the same way as a good boyfriend, husband, or father would. don't let your androgynous feminist agenda blind you from common sense. most men are physically stronger than women and they have 4x upper body strength than we do. if a man was to attack a man, it would pretty much be a fair fight (barring extreme weight/height differences). there are very few women who would be a match for most men, making ur analogy BS
Anon, shf84's analogy is nonsense anyhow. Someone asking for help is not a coward, pathetic, repulsive, disgusting, dump, lame, insane, a user or any of the other insulting and ableist words that so many on here are flinging around in their privilege. In different situations we all need or want protection. Nothing wrong with that.
In many cases you are right, a fight between two men may be more evenly matched than between a woman and a man. But not always. Good points all around.
My friends probably wouldn't feel as strongly about protecting me as your boyfriend would would they? That's because I'm not using a romantic attachment as a pretense to get them to protect me. Your boyfriend does it because he loves you and thinks you love him in the same way even though your in it partly for protection and he has no idea he's being used.
As to the guy, girl , space alien etc who closed his eyes and hit a bunch of keys on his key board for a username read his stuff; nut ball.
Now we finally see the result of the OP's calling other women pathetic and WHY I am opposed to such classist language. Notice how shf84 KNOWS now WHY a woman is with a man, and boils it down to one, and ONLY one reason:
"That's because I'm not using a romantic attachment as a pretense to get them to protect me. "
"thinks you love him"
"he has no idea he's being used."
So, she's looking to her lover for support, and thus that's the ONLY reason she's with him and CANT possibly love him. Uh huh
Aorthoir you are on the money with that!
shf84, if you are going to go around giving "advice" to people on here you might want to be more objective when answering questions instead of perverting it with your own warped, twisted attitudes hidden behind a feminist facade. I find it odd that you hold these views and consider yourself a male feminist. I know that "men and women are equal" is pretty universal among most people, but I think you got it twisted. men and women are equal in value but..
Not equal in every single characteristic. and that should be okay. we don't have to be exactly alike, have the same weaknesses and strength to be equal. why can't men and women just be? why do people believe that men and women must be exactly the same in every area if we are to be equal to each other? sexual dimorphism is real. *rolls eyes* is it a societal construct that men have genetically and biologically 4X upper body strength, more testosterone, greater muscle mass and retention
Patriarchy has nothing to do with this. it's how humans are designed ;) even though a woman may be physically strong, a physically strong man will take a woman down with his bare hands. don't let your agenda delude you from the obvious facts!
And since you claim to be a feminist, I am going to assume you have some knowledge on rape/sexual assault (a "feminist issue") and are somewhat versed on gender issues..if you do have that knowledge, then it seems like you would know that violence against women is one of the most widespread violations of human rights. obviously since women are naturally less physically strong than men, that a woman would be more likely to be victimized in a violent and sexual manner.
So much more likely that 1 in 4 women have experienced a sexual assault against them. denying the fact that women are more physically vulnerable than a man is just a bold faced LIE. if I am walking to my car after work and I am by myself I am much more likely to be harmed. if I am with a coworker (if one is there that night) then I am less likely. if I am with my BOYFRIEND, guess what the odds of someone physically attacking me are way way down.
Many men who are not delusional to the fact that women are physically weaker than men have no issue with wanting to protect her and keep her just the presence of a man being there makes a woman safer in a vulnerable situation. pretending that this reality isn't there does not help feminism at all.
You are one of those extreme "feminists" that have this condescending view towards womenfolk who they claim to be advocating for and you're completely ignoring scientific facts to repute your view point. yes there are many men who are not stronger than women. but did you know that many rapes are planned in advance and that a man who is intent on physically attacking a woman is likely to target one that he can handle?
If he is very small and in poor shape he might attack a young girl, but say if he was an average sized man who was stronger than you guess what you would be fcked! that is the point that you seem to be missing. what do you think about patriarchy and its effects on the exploitation and violence against women? don't you think that might have something to do why a small/weak woman is even more vulnerable than a small/weak man just based on the fact that she is a woman?
Anon, you have many valid points. I will say though that in any PARTICULAR circumstance a specific woman might be stronger than a specific man (as you would agree).
My point in all of these posts is, IF a woman CHOOSES a mate for ANY reason, including among them seeking protection, INSULTING her for not thinking she is able to defend herself sure as HADES ain't gonna give her the wherewithal to LEARN to defend herself.
Many have pointed out the dearth of women in certain fields (math for instance) exists because women that tried to enter were insulted and discouraged. So imagine a woman going to the OP or shf84 for self defense lessons and being told by them she is PATHETIC. How on goddesses' green earth is THAT going to ENCOURAGE her to continue her lessons? Well, imagine the same woman coming here and seeing such ageless tropes and by the very persons CLAIMING to SUPPORT Strong women.
What she learns in these cases is that YET AGAIN someone in society is telling her SHE'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. She's NOT meeting THEIR standards. She's YET AGAIN disenfranchised because she was too meek or scared or had lived a life of abuse or she's felt she was too small to learn anything, or for ANY OTHER REASON she'd avoided learning to defend herself and relied entirely on others.
How about instead of calling them PATHETIC, we ENCOURAGE such women instead? Is that TOO F'n HARD? REALLY?
True women are general weaker than men though not all men by a long shot. Taking your boyfriend or some friends with you as a precaution seems fine if you think you in an aria where your in danger sure that makes sense. Picking out a boyfriend because you think he''ll make a good security guard is disgusting relationships are about love, about caring for each other not about using each other. Violence against women is a problem but you don't pervert you love live over it.
The hippy self righteousness has reached a boiling point now he's using curse words. The OP is not really condemner the women she's condemning the behavior actually. Like saying drug use is pathetic or committing burglary is pathetic. Harsh words but not really a big deal unless you think that the people behaving that way are really that weak and stupid or childish.
and why assume the woman is somehow unable to make choices for her self?
Actually why bother encouraging the women or disenfranchising or any thing else? Their just self determining their relationships. Self determination is what British Petroleum should get into
"We've decided that it's an undersea art project ala Christo were wrapping the ocean in a thin film of crude oil.
Chrimeny this needs debunked because AGAIN shf84 is making arguments NONE of us made. So let's break it down shall we...
"True women are general weaker than men though not all men by a long shot."
Agreed. We ALL agree with this and that there are many men weaker than many women.
" Taking your boyfriend or some friends with you as a precaution seems fine if you think you in an aria where your in danger sure that makes sense."
Right. That is EXACTLY what ALL of us are talking about.
"Picking out a boyfriend because you think he''ll make a good security guard is disgusting "
NO ONE BUT YOU has been saying this. NO ONE. It's called a Straw Man. You ignore the ACTUAL argument we are making and present something ELSE we are NOT arguing as if we ARE arguing it.
"relationships are about love, about caring for each other not about using each other."
Mostly I agree. But if a couple is in it for something else and it is consensual, so be it. It's not our business to interfere.
" Violence against women is a problem but you don't pervert you love live over it."
No one is. Your straw man is NOT why people are getting into relationships, though you keep bringing it up, because your entire objection to what we saying (that women should not be called pathetic) hinges on your ability to play bait and switch. Not a single person here has said that people get into relationships just for protection. Again since you don't get it, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE.
Except for you.
"The OP is not really condemner the women she's condemning the behavior actually. Like saying drug use is pathetic or committing burglary is pathetic."
The "your not stupid, your DECISIONS are" defense.
Also are comparing wanting to be protected with buglary. Really? That's called victim blaming.
"why assume the woman is somehow unable to make choices for her self?"
Another straw man. We're saying she IS able to and calling her PATHETIC for her decisions is repugnant.
"Actually why bother encouraging the women or disenfranchising or any thing else?"
Actually why not just stop disenfranchising them?
"Their just self determining their relationships."
That's RIGHT. They ARE. Remember this nugget:
"why assume the woman is somehow unable to make choices for her self?"
So how about it shf84? Why do you keep assuming she is unable to make her own choices?
BP comparison is irrelevant and an attempt at shaming language. It is the "TONE" argument.
Actually forming a relationship with a man for protection is exactly what the OP is talking about. You calling it a straw man argument either indicates that you don't understand the post or your trying to muddy the water. And yes I remember that "nugget" and I stand by it women in general can think perfectly well for themselves but women or any one else that thinks they need to hide behind their lover for protection is wrong.
The problem here is you don't seem to understand that condemning behavior in a hand full of people from a group does not mean you condemn the group. You keep accusing me of saying women are disgusting etc but that's not what I said. What I said is that f***ed up women are disgusting which they are. Your so busy pushing your agenda and pointing your finger in every ones face like a typical Berkly Torquemada the you don't stop to think.
"The problem here is you don't seem to understand that condemning behavior in a hand full of people from a group does not mean you condemn the group. "
First, there is no "behavior" to condemn. There are many persons, men and women, from all walks of life that find themselves in need of being defended. This is NOT behavior that should be condemned. Doing so is VICTIM BLAMING.
Ridiculously comparing those persons to serial killers and child abusers DOENS'NTmake them deserving of condemnation.
Because they are NOT serial killers and child abusers.
"You keep accusing me of saying women are disgusting etc but that's not what I said."
Again you are using a STRAW MAN. I didn't accuse you of that. I accused you of calling women PATHETIC which you did. You tried to use the "YOUR not pathetic, your DECISIONS are" defense. That doesn't cut it. Telling a person her decisions are pathetic is as insulting as saying she is pathetic. And you know it. So cut the bs.
" What I said is that f***ed up women are disgusting which they are."
shf84 compares women seeking protection to:
Drug user. Check.
Burgler. Check.
Serial killer. Check.
F***ed up. Check.
User of men. Check.
THIS is working ELIMINATE gende roles? Making up such nasty comparisons for women THAT HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG? They've not done ANYTHING but MAKE UP THEIR OWN minds about how they PERSONALLY live. But why let them when he can QUESTION their choices and INSULT them and their decisions.
"Your so busy pushing your agenda"
Yeah? My AGENDA is PERSONAL AUTONOMY. So yeah I WILL push that. I believe in RESPECTING a woman's RIGHT TO CHOSE. If I think there is a BETTER way than her choice, I offer RESOURCES. INSULTING her like you have done, WILL NOT HELP. But showing her that yes, in many circumstances she CAN DEFENDER HERSELF, not calling her pathetic, will empower her to do so.. It's why many women are not in the engineering fields. HELP not INSULT. You should try it bucko.
" and pointing your finger in every ones face like a typical Berkly Torquemada"
This is called the "tone" argument. The "way" I am addressing the issue is "unacceptable" to shf84. The fact that I am speaking the truth matters little. He's determined to use insulting language about women that make decisions he disagrees with, comparing them to users of men, serial killers, child abusers, they are f***ed up, so he's not going to let a little thing like reality, truth and facts get in his way.
" the you don't stop to think."
And this is the most classic of all. While he is using unthinking comparisons of women that choose to be defended with serial killers, child abusers, burglers, drug users and other nonsensicals, he then convinces himself that my point on point logical answers are because I don't stop to think. How's that delusion thing working out for you shf84?
Another canned response that is only germane to one way of thinking and can not be applied eclectically. I say you don't stop to think because you don't. I use an example of a much more serious offense to highlight the immorality of a lesser one and you think I believe them to be equal. I point out the flaws in your thinking by comparing you to Torquemada and you call it a "tone argument" I don't like the way your saying things when in fact I don't like the way you reason things out.
Now; if someone thinks the attitude behind someones speaking does not reveal something about how they reason things out that person is badly mistaken.
" I use an example of a much more serious offense to highlight the immorality of a lesser one and you think I believe them to be equal."
No I believe you are CONFLATING the two not EQUATING. It's a common tactic. Regardless of your intent, conflating two divergent topics like these is used in arguing to STOP THINKING PROCESSES. It forms a deliberate connection between one HARMLESS act, with another HARMFUL act.
There is no reason to compare a woman's rightfully free choice to crimes.
" I point out the flaws in your thinking by comparing you to Torquemada"
Except you haven't pointed out the flaws in my thinking. Rather what you keep doing is "comparing me" to this or that. That IS the tone argument.
"I don't like the way you reason things out"
Except you have yet to address any of those things I've reasoned out.
So here are my points:
All persons of all genders should be able to do the following without marginalization:
Defend themselves.
Be defended by others.
Enter ADULT CONSENTING relationships
Live by free will.
Have FULL bodily autonomy.
NOT be victimized.
NOT be victim blamed.
NOT be humiliated or hurt because of their decisions.
NOT be accused of immorality for making personal choices.
So there is a basic sum of what I and others have been saying. Address THOSE without ad hominems or strawmen?
"Now; if someone thinks the attitude behind someones speaking does not reveal something about how they reason things out that person is badly mistaken."
Pointing out that someone is using the tone argument doesn't deny that emotions lead to at least some of our decisions. Rather, it acknowledges that emotion is VALID. It is VALID for someone to be angry when they are marginalized, beaten, abused, denied employement, denied equal access to common public facilities, are insulted and so on.
Pointing out that someone has done such things, might be done in an rightfully angry tone. The one abusing another doesn't get to complain that they aren't being told about their abuse in a sweet tender voice.
What this boils down to is you don't want to think that a person engaging in despicable behavior hurts society at large. You want what is done for less than honorable motives placed on the same level as what is done for honorable motives. To think that laziness is as good as honest work or to say that having no confidence in your self and hiding behind others is as good as believing in your self is harmful in it's very nature and must be spoken out against.
"What this boils down to is you don't want to think that a person engaging in despicable behavior hurts society at large."
Wrong. Rather, I do not call things despicable when they are not.
"You want what is done for less than honorable motives placed on the same level as what is done for honorable motives."
Wanting to be protected is not 'less than honorable'.
"To think that laziness is as good as honest work"
Another conflation to add to your list. This has nothing to do with the topic.
"or to say that having no confidence in your self and hiding behind others is as good as believing in your self is harmful in it's very nature and must be spoken out against."
Having confidence is a benefit. We don't help those that lack it by calling them or their decisions pathetic, immoral, vile, and conflating them with serial killers, child abusers, users of men and using other inflamatory language. Rather, doing so saps them of that which they do have.
Wanting your lover to protect you is cowardly no one should even be considering that. It is less than honorable. Conflation is an attempt to confuse two things that are similar not an attempt to use one to illustrate aspects of the other yet one more concept you have misapplied. But this is just another tool to attack the integrity of the person your debating like accusing them of hatred toward various groups. Shows you can't come up with an honest rebuttal.
"Wanting your lover to protect you is cowardly"
No it is not.
"no one should even be considering that."
Everyone should be considering it and wanting MUTUAL protection.
"It is less than honorable."
It is completely honorable.
"Shows you can't come up with an honest rebuttal"
You mean like honestly comparing someone who just wants to feel protected to someone that murders, abuses children, uses men, is a serial killer, uses drugs, is a prostitute, and other noteworthy criminal offenses?
Anon thanks. You only have to read up thread to see the disgusting things shf84 is trying to say about women (and men) that want to be protected or want to protect another. I'm not posting to convince him because he's decided he doesn't want to deal with reality. Rather I post to remind people that not everyone fits into his (or the ops) classist, ableist view of the world.
If we want to encourage women to learn self defense calling them immoral and pathetic won't do the trick.
You keep talking about mutual protection which is a given I never said it was immoral in the slightest. I'm talking about what the OP said which is women who think they need a man to protect them. These women don't want mutual protection they want to be protected and will choose their lover based on that rather than on love . That's what I have said over and over and over and you have tried to twist into something entirely different over and over. That makes you a liar .
Also if someone does something disgusting and I say "that's disgusting" that's what it means not this crap of saying the person is disgusting I really don't' care what you think it is that's what I think it is and your no better than me. Actually the fact that you think these people need coddling and sweet talking shows you have no real respect for their decision making process, you think their screwed up and need mothering.
I think it is great you have these skills. I am physically fit but small and I don't know how to fight. Reality is though, that not many guys I know are fighters either. They would be likely to just cause another guy to not want to bother with the two of us or they probably could restrain someone but I don't realistically see them as protection.
So, I don't see it as two extremes. I don't need a man to protect me. I live alone and I travel and go out alone as well. I use other strategies to stay safe rather than be forced to rely on my modest fighting ability. I wouldn't call someone pathetic just because they are not good at fighting.
I agree. You are so right. Everyone should know how to protect themselves, man or woman. Nobody should rely on anyone else to protect them. I can take care of my girl but, I think it's good that she can protect herself if it came down to it. And obviously I'm not always going to be around to protect her 24/7 so, it would be unrealistic for her to depend on my protection at all times although, I wish I could.
If girls would like to be considered equal to guys then, they need to show them that the men are not dominant over them.
Liked for being one of the best comments on the thread, less emotion, more fact.
Thank you. I am speaking of a matter of fact.
I agree you are. That's why I liked your comment. A lot of the responses on each side, are emotional and shaming, particularly of women, or weak men. Your's was a reasoned response. It would be nice if others were less emotion and more fact. Hope that clarifies.
Statistics* show that women are far more likely to be raped by a man they know, rather than a stranger. So, how exactly does having men in one's life serve as a protection against assault? I'm not advocating tossing men out of one's life and I'm not saying this to put men down. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in the logic behind the notion that women need men around for their protection. The prospect of having men in one's life is a neutral proposition as far as safety goes. You might be endangered by a man in your life or you might not. Having a guy around provides no guarantees.
*reference: link
Exactly
I assure you that if you think that way it's because you have never lived in a place where you feared for your life and having a man with you kept problems from arising. I know it's fun to theorize about these things but it's not a joke or a theory. There are places in this world where not having a man around is an invitation for violence against you.
Places where men are running things and women don't do any thing about it.
I totally agree. The man that caused me the most physical, sexual and emotional harm in my life was my biological father. That happens way more often than a stranger in an alleyway...which p*sses me off to no end. No matter what I did, I was not going to be protected from him.
My father was that way to, good old family values I don't have children to this day a lot of it is not wanting to relive what I dealt with in child hood. This stuff makes me sick to no end. These men get involved with a woman and think she's some kid of servant it's all about him who the hell ARE these people that think like this? How can someone take an obviously criminal mindset and call that normal?
The answerer is mostly right. Most violence comes from two places. The "drug war" or someone we know. That doesn't change hisangel's experiencing of stranger violence and there's no reason we need to dismiss her. That said, who protects us from those in our very own home?
I dunno, women have too much self confidence in what they can do. Men can tolerate a lot of pain, at least I can, a couple of bunches and kicks isn't going to bring a guy down. You might think you're all that but if you get in a real jam a couple of well placed btich slaps will show you your place.
LOL ; I'll answer you. I think women like to lead their men in a relationship that they have developed. And, once you are together it is nature's course of action for the dude to step up when things get out of control.
This is just sick. Some big dude could make you his prison bitch to so what?
Wow all I can say is I as a person can handle a lot of pain more than many of my male friends and a well placed punch can bring even you down and francly being slapped would make me fight harder against my attacer looking for opportune places to hit to get away.
i love how most of the guys answering this question think in no matter what situation involving an attack a girl is helpless
I agree with soldat. Most women have never been in a fight and have no idea how debilitating a punch to the face or stomach can be. I have seen one of the toughest chicks I know get beat by a guy. It wasn't' a fight, she was beat because there was no way she could fight back. When you actually see a man and woman fight, I mean really go at it, the leave of strength the man has is astonishing compared to the woman. It is actually sickening to see how much stronger an average guy is then you.
I've seen video of two big cops trying to take down a fat woman , she thew them around like rag dolls. I have seen footage of another big muscular cop trying to arrest a slightly stocky woman and he could barely handle her. Most guys couldn't they would end up in the hospital. Now if your talking some guy who's built like Mr T not to many men are going to handle a guy like that either.
Shf84, I said most women have never been in a fight, what you mentioned was not a fight. I'm talking taking a guys punch to the face full on several times. The average woman CANNOT, no matter how much you hope she can, she cannot take a hit like that. A lot of guys can't either. But women tend to walk around acting like they can take a hit have no idea what it feels like.
Women don't walk around thinking that where on earth do you get this stuff? Every thing your saying about women is true of a lot of men to yet you keep up with this stuff about how weak and flimsy women are. Bottom line, men are NOT your protectors it's NOT our job to look after you like we would a child. You have to deal with it like any other adult.
I love how some people try to make up sh*t that have barely any tangential relevance to the subject at hand just so they can have any semblance to intellect. No it's not a man's job to protect a woman, but it's common decency to protect those who are weaker than us, or is that a trait, besides intelligence, that you lack as well?
Shf84, So a woman that DOES WANT or feels she NEEDS protection, is a "child". Your language is entirely dismissive of those women and nothing short of misogyny.
hisangel, I agree with you on many levels, but I have seen my mom take a hit that would knock me out. Whether we're men or women, there's always someone bigger.
"No it's not a man's job to protect a woman, but it's common decency to protect those who are weaker than us" THIS. Good point.
Having a lover is about loving them not hiding behind them.
First, protecting each other is NOT hiding behind someone. You know it, I know it. But it makes a conveniently dismissive trope, so you'll use it over and over again.
Next, it's a LONG step to believe that the ONLY reason one wants a lover is for protection. If that IS the reason though and they both are satisfied, its none of our business that they are together. Chances are though, there are MANY reasons a couple is together. Protecting each other is NOT an abomination as you make it out.
Protecting each other is a given she's talking about gender roles men as protectors.
"Protecting each other is a given she's talking about gender roles men as protectors"
And those women who CHOOSE to have men as their protectors, or who HAVE to choose it for a variety of reasons, SHOULD NOT be SHAMED for their choice.
As we have said though, MOST of the time when it comes to protection, we're all mutually protecting each other in a relationship.
Those women who choose men as their protectors are following a harmful gender role love isn't about protection prostitution is just like a "bitch" in prison.
"hose women who choose men as their protectors are following a harmful gender role"
No they are not. You can deny but the reality that there are a number of women, like there are a number of men, that are either unable, or have great difficulty protecting themselves. Having a lover, that is willing to protect them is not a harmful gender role.
What IS a harmful gender role is SHAMING WOMEN for their PERSONAL DECISIONS which hurt NO ONE. For instance, calling them, or their decisions pathetic.
" love isn't about protection prostitution is just like a "bitch" in prison"
Love is about whatever the persons that are in love say it is about.
shf84's women shame checklist. Women who choose something different than shf84 decides are or are like:
1.Pathetic
2.Burglers
3.Murderers
4.Child Abusers
5.Users of men
6.Serial Killers
7.F'ed Up
8.Bitch
And he thinks that he is FIGHTING gender roles...
Rather you are deluding yourself. Women don't need "allies" of your sort.
No one needs allies who can't tell right from wrong and concentrate on accusations rather than facts that's for sure and that would be you. Love is about love it is what it is. Any one who tries to bend reality to suit there views is walking away from it.
"can't tell right from wrong and concentrate on accusations rather than facts"
From the start you've used highly inflamatory language, insulting women, their choices, conflating them with murders, serial killers, child abusers and others. That's not dealing in facts. You also reject the RIGHT that women should live with PERSONAL AUTONOMY.
"Any one who tries to bend reality to suit there views is walking away from it. "
Too bad you cannot see how what your saying actually applies to you.
You have used highly inflammatory language from the start making accusation after accusation of prejudice then actually tried to defend immoral behavior as being as helpful and positive as right behavior any thing does not go there are right ways and wrong ways to go about things.
Mods please lock this so the idiot above me can't post anymore of his bs.
Sordat, I'll not reply on here so we don't bother you any more. I am sure shf84 will respect your wish too.
If the hippie leaves there is no more reason for me to post here but it's NOT out of respect for you.
you should have been proactive and just blocked me instead of crying like a baby about it.
Your parents should've been proactive and blocked you before insemination.
I used to protect myself because I played rugby and hockey for school and rep... but when my own boyfriend started beating me, and hurting me I lost that sence of self saviour... I no longer felt like I could protect myself because even someone that I felt was someone I loved and trusted could hurt me it really just left me baffled and confused... but its been 4 years since then and I am getting more "ballzy" starting to get back to my old self but no... I've never thought I needed a man... because sometimes its "that man" who ends up hurting you.
I hope you recover from that trauma and betrayal. A guy who attacks a girl is nothing more than a coward. Don't allow his, your ex-boyfriend's, cowardice to affect your self-confidence and belief that you can defend yourself or stop you from living your life without fear and happiness.
That's why I love my new man so much, ya we fight what couples don't honestly? But he still makes me feel like a princess and he would probably tear down anyone who hurt me.. infact h's on several occasions tried to hurt both my ex's for what they did to me.. but I'm a bigger person... I told him ignore it all that matters is him and me not the past.
You're right, it's really pathetic, shows how insecure most of women are. It's business too as to get the best male, the best male means the tallest and the strongest she can get, like she is buying a protection tool for a long term. When women walk up to a stranger, how on earth they know what his values or personality is like? they approach cause of his appearance, so they can brag about it later on if they could get him. And yes, this is life, and most women are that greedy, shallow and bad, you're a rarity.
I only hope that you'll keep it up even when you get older.
I've been protected by guys (my daddy, my brothers, etc) my entire life but they're just looking out for me because they care. I can protect myself and it drives me crazy that they think I can't! My gut friend was talking about how he just got a gun license and said "now I can protect you!" I sure hope he was joking but again it shows he cares. I was taught to protect myself at an early age which in itself is kinda protecting me. My daddy took me to a gun range and we go hunting alot. I probably know how to shot the gun better than my friend. I don't need protecting but at the same time I want them to care enough to want to protect me. Does that make sense? Sorry I rambled.