Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Why do women think they need men to protect them? (Page 3)
Anonymous
(30-35) 
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!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
62Opinion
Because women are naturally weaker than men...so obviously they are more vulnerable and need protection from predators. That's how it has worked since the caveman.
Your in shape and carry pepper-spray? Great, but the majority of women can't defend themselves (and they would rather a man do it anyway)
Jeez, I love how you assume all women are exactly the same. What about lesbians, gender-queer women or women who do not want to rely on men? Do they not exist in your small, sad, little world?
Lockjawz27, some women are naturally weaker than some men, and some men are naturally weaker than some women. Though, on the high end, the strongest men are thus far, stronger than the strongest women. And I hate to break it to you but pepper spray, yeah it's a great equalizer. It can bring all but the most rare of men, to their knees.
Colegrl he made no heteronormative statement. He was merely speaking on the biological differences between the sexes (not the genders).
I was speaking to that last clause. "the majority of women can't defend themselves (and they would rather a man do it anyway)" That is extremely hetero normative.
It's a lie any way women don't need a man to protect them and if a lot of women think they do it's because of malenculturation.
Colegrl, even that last bit isn't heteronormative. It's bio-normative. As someone who has seen ALL the women in his family defend against men much larger than themselves, I call bunk on the claim. But that doesn't make the claim het-normative.
shf84, actually I would say it is femaleculturnation. The vast majority of men I know are well aware of a womb man's ability to defend zeself. When I hear otherwise, the majority of the time it is womb men, not waep men.
Womb man waep men? Now I'm leaning to the nut case hypothesis even more. Maybe you were drunk or jacked up on something when you wrote this but I haven't even seen to many drunks write things like that. "zeself" could be a typo maybe an attempt to be colorful the others beginning to look a lot like shrooms , weed or mental likely the last one.
"Womb man waep men?"
Google is your friend.
" "zeself"... beginning to look a lot like shrooms , weed or mental likely the last one. "
Again time to get your 101 on. Can anyone tell me why so often when people PURPORT to repudiate sexism, they not only use sexist language to do so, but also ableist, and other unacceptable isms?
Once again I point out the reason to avoid TYPICALLY SEXIST DEMEANING LANGUAGE because it doesn't stop there. You can't defend ONE ism by using ist language.
Think I'll pass on your cool aid it smells funny.
By which you mean pass on ceasing to dehumanize women who don't meet your standards.
Which means I'll pass on giving up thinking for my self.
But you won't pass on thinking for others or insisting that they NOT think for themselves. Unless of course the "thinking for THEMSELVES" involves a woman making the decision YOU deem acceptable.
Has nothing to with what I deem acceptable it has to do with simple facts. Picking a lover because they can protect you is wrong you can't change reality to suit what you want. If you make a mistake and someone points it out that has nothing to do with them trying to control you.
"has to do with simple facts. Picking a lover because they can protect you is wrong"
Another straw man. It's NOT fact at all. The ONLY ONE on this entire thread that claimed this is YOU. You were called on your insulting language, and since it has no basis, you have to keep making things up.
" you can't change reality to suit what you want."
Which is exactly what you are trying to do with your strawmen. You keep trying to argue against something NONE of us argued.
"nothing to do with [shf84] trying to control you"
This from the man who said:
"Oh but my ideas do get a say in how people live, how do you think politicians get elected to office"
Then we have your insulting of women who don't meet your standards and your conflating their PERSONAL AUTONOMY with crimes like murder, serial killers and child abuse. Your language has been the language of control from your first post. So you can CLAIM you aren't trying to be controlling all you want.
I already explained what I was trying to do with those comparisons I was trying to explain simple ethical mechanics and instead of trying to make a counterpoint you resort to faux shock and outrage and make more accusations in an attempt to discredit , this really has nothing to do with making a point it has to do with smoke and mirrors. You accuse me of control but you insist others use your moral framework.
"I already explained what I was trying to do with those comparisons I was trying to explain simple ethical mechanics"
An ethical mechanic that is wholly unrelated to the issue at hand. But that won't stop you from using an extreme, UNRELATED issue when your poinst are not proven.
"and instead of trying to make a counterpoint you resort to faux shock and outrage"
I'm neither shocked nor outraged. Your first post demonstrated the kind of person you are, and I expect nothing more from you.
"and make more accusations in an attempt to discredit"
You accuse yourself, I don't need to do that. You also discredit yourself. All I have to do is keep reminding readers of the absurdity of your claims and the nastiness of your pejoratives.
"You accuse me of control but you insist others use your moral framework."
No. I insist that everyone's bodily autonomy be respected. That means we don't interfere with individuals personal decisions, including how they mate. (Consent, no harm).
And I don't agree with you if you call this pointing out absurdity in what I say your doing a mighty sh*tty job every thing you have wrote on her is about as absurd as it gets. I don't care about the bodily autonomy of people who don't behave ethically nor about aiding them in continuing their behavior. That's just stupid and it's wrong.
"I don't care about the bodily autonomy of people who don't behave ethically nor about aiding them in continuing their behavior."
No, you don't care about the bodily autonomy of people with whom you disagree. You've demonstrated that if you disagree with someone you are more than willing to make up anything you want about them, no matter how vitriolic your claim is. You have no grounding in your position so you have to keep resorting to the false "but it's immoral!" rant.
And why do you suppose I keep saying it is immoral? Guess what, it is.
Well believe it or not, women are evolutionarily programmed to want a guy to protect them. So it is in women's brains from birth to judge a man by his survival value. One of the main things that a man's survival value is judged on is his strength. Not necessarily physical strength, but the skills that he has that will help him to take care of the people he cares about. This includes wit, assertiveness and decisiveness. But it can be physical strength.
it's a biological thing. women are hardwired to feel safer with a man they trust. men are the other way around, they feel better with a woman they need to protect, they feel more protective and they feel obligated. not saying you NEED us men, but in a lot of cases that is true, and not saying we should be protective, just saying I do REALLY feel obligated to protect the girl I'm with. even if I know I'd loose I'd still try. it's biological, that's all there is to it.
I don't think it's pathetic at all really, it's not to do with protecting you there and then, it's about protecting you long-term for the rest of your life. It's not about being your bodyguard either, it's about giving you the security that there is something there to look after you for the rest of your life, not just in terms of defense but financially and emotionally, etc.
What kind of a woman would want that? Who would want a woman like that for that matter. One who had no ambition beyond having some man protect her and support her. That is pathetic, disgusting in fact.
It's natural instinct, check out some social psychology.
No it is not pathetic shf84. Couples give EACH OTHER security. As I have said throughout YOU don't get to define the relationships of OTHERS. If YOU don't want someone to protect you, that's just fine FOR YOU. But this ableist language, calling other women PATHETIC because they want something other than you IS NOTHING SHORT OF MISOGYNY.
Two (or more) lovers (or friends or family) wanting to comfort each other and be each others security is beautiful NOT disgusting. Your language is judgemental
Abilist language ha ha where do you get this sh*t any way? I don't get to? Too bad for you it's up to me how I think and not you, guess it's out of your hands.
Now if a person actually WAS disabled like couldn't walk or see etc. that would be different. But this woman isn't, she just thinks it's ok for women to hide behind men. Why you can't see that I have not idea. And it IS pathetic when someone thinks they can't because of their sex or accepts that kind of garbage.
Shf84, you need to get your 101 on. Do a bit of study about ableism then come back.
And sorry but NO you DONT get to demean women because of life choices they make that YOU disagree with. Each time you TRY someone else will stand up and refute your misogyny. Finally you COMPLETELY misrepresented what MrAnon said. NOTHING was said about "hiding behind men". Making up something won't make you right.
Its not about hiding behind men or relying on them totally, as already mentioned in this conversation, you BOTH offer each other security, it's a two-way thing.
Maybe it's natural instinct but a lot of women don't feel that instinct anymore.
It depends on the extent of what the girls want their man to do. I work out on a regular basis and I am 6 feet tall and very strong, but I want my guy to be able to protect me 'IF NEED BE'. I can take care of myself just fine, but lets just say that a guy twice my size tries to start something with me... I would want to feel reassured that I don't have to worry because my guy would take care of it for me. Its not about your guy being your bodyguard per say, it's about knowing that if your guy is with you that he doesn't want you to try to take on this big guy by yourself because he can do it for you. Why fight a guy twice your size if you don't have too?
For me it's knowing that we both would protect each other, and protection comes in different forms. Desiring protection from one's mate does not make us any less.
Your lover is not your body guard. If you are romantically involved with someone for a good or service that's prostitution.
"Your lover is not your body guard."
You don't get to determine what my lover is or is not, that's for us, and ONLY US to decide.
"If you are romantically involved with someone for a good or service that's prostitution"
You don't get to define what we call our relationship.
Relationships come in an infinite number of varieties. Thefting the bodily autonomy of another might make you feel good, but frankly, how others live is none of our business.
You don't get to do what every you want and call it what you want if it's something besides what your calling it. You get involved with a person for protection or food or a pack of cigarettes that's prostitution. That's what the word means you can call it what every you want but you can't change what it IS. So really it's not me that's defining it, it's me observing it.
And how others live IS our business, some people choose to live in street gangs or start hate groups that affects us.
Suppose you take a crap on a plate and call it mashed potatoes. Someone comes along and says ewwww why are you eating sh*t?
You gasp and stair at them in disbelief! You don't get to decide what I call food! Your "thefting" my bodily autonomy! How dare you! The person shakes their head and walks off. So are you eating sh*t or mashed potatoes?
"You don't get to do what every you want and call it what you want if it's something besides what your calling it."
I get to call my relatioinships ANYTHING I and my lovers agree to. YOU have NO say in it.
" You get involved with a person for protection or food or a pack of cigarettes that's prostitution."
NO it is not. People get involved with each other for all sorts of reasons. By your misdefinition ALL relationships are prostitution.
"it's me observing it."
Its you trying to control.
"And how others live IS our business, some people choose to live in street gangs or start hate groups that affects us."
Excuse me? ME being in a relationship with another is compared to street gangs and hate groups? MY decisions to WHY I am in a relationship with another affects you on THAT level? I call BUNK.
In your vigorous attempt to marginalize "pathetic" women you grasp at ANY straw and twist ANY truth. The BEAUTY of MY relationships is NOT akin to hate groups or gangs.
"Suppose you take a crap on a plate and call it mashed potatoes"
Let me get this correct. My bodily autonomy, my decisions, WHICH HURT NO ONE, the decisions myself and my lovers make in HOW we love each other and why, WHICH HURT NO ONE, are to be compared by you to excrement? You are so incensed that SOME women desire protection, SO OPPOSED to them MAKING their OWN decisions, that you are willing to call their relationships EXCREMENT?
And you call THEM pathetic?
You get involved with someone for reasons of commerce instead of reasons of love that's prostitution. What about that don't you get? You sell your ass on a corner and "get involved" with a trick I'm supposed to say that's the same as a couple who cares deeply for each other? How can you possibly believe things like this?
"as opposed to someone who cares deeply..."
You're playing the same old tropes. YOU don't get to decide WHY people care for each other. NO ONE said ANYTHING about people on corners BUT YOU. Calling OTHERS relationships, which you know NOTHING about excrement, does NOT extricate you from your false dichotomy. Either their in a relationship for the reasons YOU decide, or its a loveless prostitution arrangement. WRONG.
What you don't seem to get is this is not about me deciding anything. This is about me making an observation based on the mechanics of human psychology. The way things work. You think I really say what I say because I got it in my head somehow to condemn someone just out of spite or for the fun of it ? I'm reacting to actual circumstances.
"You think I really say what I say because I got it in my head somehow to condemn someone just out of spite or for the fun of it ?"
I don't care why you CONDEMENED a woman. You can disagree with them without disenfranchising them. I grew up understanding these mechanics and a woman's need to protect herself and SAW it in ACTION. That doesn't give me the right to say nasty things to a woman who had a different life experience.
The mistake your making is to think I don't know any thing about those relationships. They are what they are and it's not rocket science to understand that.
I made no such mistake. See, I am judging you not on what I think you do or do not think or understand. I am answering per your very own words. You have said that women who do certain things are pathetic. That doesn't exactly make you an advocate for women there bub.
You dont' know the half or it , I think women that are serial killers and child abusers are pathetic to
hippy boy
Everyone notice how shf84 keeps trying to compare an INNOCENT woman CHOOSING to have someone defend her, to a woman that commits a crime like buglary, and now SERIAL KILLERS and CHILD ABUSERS. People will typically conflate an act that is NOT immoral, illegal or violent with one that is (as shf84 is doing) to bolster their incredibly weak arguments.
Compare innocent women to MURDEROUS women is ABSOLUTELY NOT about eliminating gender roles. Rather it is about MAINTAINING them. Good job shf84.
Same old crap If I say I want to eliminate gender roles that's what I mean I don't really care about some convoluted take on it that is only germane to your view of the world It's not my belief and I don't care.
"Same old crap If I say I want to eliminate gender roles that's what I mean"
Sure you SAY you want to eliminate gender roles. But you RE-ENFORCE the gender role that women only get to decide what A MAN (you) decides, or her decisions are pathetic, murderous, child abusive and other insulting false claims.
"It's not my belief and I don't care"
Right, that's the problem. It's not your belief that women should DECIDE for THEMSELVES what they want and will do. Not exactly pro-woman there bub.
Again me not agreeing with something someone does has nothing to do with me condemning the group they belong to. Your more interested in pushing your every thing goes view of life than in facts.
"Again me not agreeing with something someone does has nothing to do with me condemning the group they belong to"
Other than the fact that you did condemn them.
"Your more interested in pushing your every thing goes view of life than in facts"
Another straw man. I've said exactly the OPPOSITE of this. Believing that grown adult women, can make adult CONSENTING decisions when they harm no one, is not an "EVERYTHING goes" view.
But you won't let a little thing like THE FACTS get in your way.
A grown woman who thinks she needs to rely on a man for protection is a woman who has severely limited her self and legitimized who she is.
"A grown woman who thinks she needs to rely on a man for protection is a woman who has severely limited her self"
I agree she has limited herself. I won't limit her further by calling her, or her decisions pathetic, immoral, using of men, or make ridiculous comparisons to violent behavior, since her choice is only limiting, NOT violent. You might try that for yourself.
It should be noted that not ALL persons have the privilege to protect themselves. For instance a quadrapalegic.
If someone chooses to do something wrong and gets in others face about it the way these women do you bet I will condemn what they are doing. The quadriplegic statement is just silly evey one knows someone like that would have a hard time defending them self.
"If someone chooses to do something wrong"
It's not wrong.
"and gets in others face about it the way these women do"
No one got in your face about it. You're lying again.
"you bet I will condemn what they are doing."
No you will make up things and then condemn that.
" The quadriplegic statement is just silly evey one knows someone like that would have a hard time defending them self."
Actually it demonstrates that your claim of immorality is just a lie and ableist.
You should be selling some plastic potato peeler on an infomercial if you think I'll buy that cheep crap. Spin spin spin
I recommend you to take the example of sports: Any sport, that is separated by sexes. Look, men play better tennis, men play better footbal, better soccer, better boxing, run faster, swim faster, etc etc etc. I'm talking about professionals. Both men and women.
Now, do you really think you could protect yourself from a mike tyson, even if you felt like you're the strongest woman ever? In doubt? Watch some of his clips on youtube, and believe me: there are lots of myke tysons out there, and some are stronger and even faster.
But hey, if you don't need a man, and don't want one, I think you shouldn't have one! It's your call. Just don't say women are equally stronger than men, because that is scientifically incorrect.
Hey, she could have a need for a man, just not for that stupid scenario.
Wow, your really independent. And I give you props for that :)
I guess sometimes girls just like the feeling of having a man to be there for them no matter what. So if ever there is something she can't handle, he will be there to take care of it. I know I'm like that.
its not pathetic. Its classy. I know I don't usually NEED a man to protect me but I think its nice to have the option. I'm in shape too and 5'11. So its not like I'm an easy target but c'mon who doesn't like the whole knight in shining armor thing? If you want to rescue yourself go on ahead, props tp u...thats just not my style.
Are you too good?
I'm not into the whole girls thinking they are too good for a guy. (not saying you are) Like when a guy is being a gentlemen and opens the door and she reacts saying I am physically able to open the door for myself thank you very much! But a woman who is in shape and can kick ass when need be to protect herself and not needing man to double as her bodyguard is hott as hell! Plus if the girl I am dating knows self defense, I wouldn't mind sparring with her from time to time. ;)
Id like to see my friend who is five foot f*uck all and weighs less than 100 lbs defend herself against even the smallest guys in my grade...
Not all girls have the mindset "where is the strong handsom prince to come save my from this mean man?"
Like you I'm also strong and can handle my own in most situations, but sure as hell not all of them. Pepper spray or not.
No one can handle every situation but it's only women who are expected to go crying to their daddy about it and that's wrong.
I must run in different circles, because none of the people I've ever associated expect women to run to daddy about their problems. I only hear that kind of thing from feminists, no one in "teh patriarchy" that I've met has yet to say that. But as I said, I must run in different circles from you.
Haven't you read what these women on here are saying? Look at it it 's right in front of your nose.
Yeah I have read it. That's why I say I must run in DIFFERENT circles than yall. I am not dismissing your experiences. I have simply had the exact opposite experience.
i am very extremely strong for a girl and I understand how important it is for us to be able to protect ourselves. but I do want to know that if something happened and I was with a guy ,that he would be able to do something to. what would it look like him balled up in a corner and I'm tryna fight off an attacker that's not fair
i would never put myself in a position where I could get hurt. but I love it when I feel protected by my man. I consider him my strength and that is why he is my other half. not very many girls are as strong as you so that is why some girls like having a man around
probably cause you can take all the self defense classes you want, but if you're an average 5"7 135 pound woman and a huge man wants to attack you... he's gonna attack you, and it's going to be very easy. The best way to defend yourself is to be smart, not to try to beat him in a fight which is not likely to happen.
Seriously... I know it's frustrating and all to be considered smaller and weaker, but sometimes you just have to accept the unfair sh*t in life and move on.
i personally don't feel as though I need a man to protect me, I've gone 21yrs without one so I think I'm doing pretty well. lol. I think it stems from the childhood fairytales prince charming saving the damzel in distress, they fall in love and live happily ever after thing. lets face it, it would make life a lot simpler. lol. but that's where I thiknk it comes from.
We rely on each other for protection, but the first line of defense is yourself.
You need others, and just because some women think that 1 man is enough to protect them (and not the entire society) doesn't make them pathetic.
Gintrovert, great answer. I agree with you entirely. I rely on others for protection, the very same ones that rely on me for protection. Me and my lovers work together in most things, including protecting each others physical, emotional and mental well being. Thank you especially for saying it doesn't make them pathetic. Calling people pathetic is shaming language and when we call women pathetic it is pure misogyny. So your speaking up against misogyny is well appreciated.
I'm a very muscular guy and if I'd hit you, you'll be in the hospital. Men are way stronger than woman and have a body filled with muscles. Girls like the idea of the strong muscular men protecting them, you can take 1000 selfdefence classes, but you have no chance against a muscular strong men. Woman like to be princesses and the man likes to be the prince, the caretaker of the lady.
I clicked the down arrow on that opinion. Even big guys can be taken down by surprise from behind or when they are not looking by someone of weaker stature than them. If she's had enough training and combat experience even if you grab both her arms watch out for her feet. If you try to hit her, without trying sucker punch her, she'll have a way of defending the punch.
You clicked down the arrow probably because your dumb. A girl with defending classes has no chance against a pumped man, hitting him will only tickle him. She won't, she can only run away, because if she comes close, she'll get hit and she'll end up in the hospital. Working out means strength, if she's close enough to just touch, she's screwed.
Man some of you guys are naive. Do you really think a girl can't put a guy down? I'm in tae kwon do and we always have fights between a girl and a guy. And I can take down a lot of the guys in my class because.. well I'm just have way better technique. It's not just about brute strength.
Tomuch strength overpowers those techniques easily. ofcourse there are skinny boys who can be taken down, but with a lot of strength you won't stand a chance with your silly techniques, that's what I'm saying.
What a bigoted and ignorant response.
Hence, the truth.
Muscles that matched the development of your ego wouldn't be much use against a bullet though? Seems smarter to me to avoid a fight in preference to any kind of physical contest where someone might end up on hospital food for months.
@ katrinasanchez, so you think you can take down a mean guy because you take TKD classes, lol. Yes, there are CASES where girls will take down guys, but statistically, it will be the other way round. take the average trained guy and the average trained girl, average body for both and average meaness for both, and you tell who you think in average will win, in real life, not in the what if scenarios of dreamland you want to come up with.
believe me ; as someone who knows this stuff (I am the only girl in my martial arts class) it does not matter if the girl knows the right places to knock you down - men have more 'tenderer' zones then women and many basic defense movements are based on the weakness
guys, we may tend to be more connected with our emotions but that makes us strong in a way that most guys can't comprhend, everyone (guys and girls) like to feel special; girls feel special when they know that a man with protect them but at the same time let us be independant and let us grow to be strong women, we will be happier if you do that...
girls can be strong phsically too and every intellegint, confident girl can take down a big brute of a guy at the end of the day, the ones that are confident, strong hearted girl (no matter in size) and knows what their doing in the slightest can kick any dudes ass!
Did you ever consider that it might be an easy way of making a guy feel good about himself? It's probably the case that every young girl in existence knows how to kick my backside if she wants to - men have a fairly-obvious weak point that you all know will, if hit, render him powerless.
There is a difference between a woman TELLING me that she needs me to rescue her, and actually needing it. Inform me that I'm wrong and I'll back down.
Bigger yes. Stronger, not so much. In any case you had the element of surprise. But for the why of the situation, I suggest that you spend a few hours researching bonobo and pan troglodyte chimps, and realize that our mating strategies are governed by a part of the brain that is a few million years old.
You are a freak of nature. I suspect that your IQ is also over 120, maybe over 130. Enjoy life and find men who are not put off by strong women and want partnerships not dominant / submissive relationships. Well, unless you want to dominate or submit :-)
I agree with you woman shouldn't depend on men to protect them, but I think some women like the idea of a man being there and beig able to protect them. It's great that your eel prepared and that you've done what you've done but not every girl can or wants to do that, I don't know why but it's true. I personally am all for defending myself, I haven't had self defense classes but growing up with my older brother and guy cousins with thief friends has made me stronger than the average girl, but even I gotta say it's nice to have a guy who can protect you, but no I don't want a bodyguard twenty four seven but I gotta say I get where both sides are coming from.