It is wrong to think men should protect all women, or even all children. If a man dies to protect the life of a stranger, he fails his family that counts on him. His loved ones should count a hell of a lot more, than than any number of strangers. In nature strangers were typically competitors for resources, if not outright enemies. To tell a man it is his place to risk his life for a stranger, is to tell him that his life counts for less, than any random stranger he will ever encounter.
Men only have a responsibility to protect the people in his inner circle. His family and friends for the most part will be the ones that fall under that category. The women, children and men in his inner circle should all fall under his protection. That is the natural order, because humans evolved to exist in smaller tribes.
In fact you can often see this natural order in play in many dangerous areas, where a woman will be walking with men she knows for protection, while men she doesn't know will try to harass her. Strangers instinctively are to either be feared, destroyed, or enslaved. This is why the human race has such a bloody dark past. Humans didn't evolve to get along in huge city sized populations. The men that are protectors of society are the police, military, firefighters, etc. They fill the gap in protecting society at large, and would not be needed if humans still lived in the environment we evolved in.
Good irony you got there, by putting Clinton in that question.
This goes to the core of men biology. They feel the need to protect the females, children, and even other men who look weaker. A friend of mine once told me, one of the reasons why there were no females in the battlefield was because men will feel the need to protect them and hence placing unnecessarily danger in the males lives.
With that been said, I feel men do what they feel biologically right, and norms and customs my rise around that, hence why you see often men protecting women and children.
Do they have the responsability or dury to do so?
No, unless special circumstances say otherwise.
Yes. Men have the advantage of physical strength over women and children. Seriously, instead of misusing it on harassing women and abusing children, use it to give protection. Because this is what we should do for a better world. Whatever you are capable of, make the most of it and help other people with it.
I once read a myTake in here where a woman wrote that she appreciates men helping her with carrying heavy objects, and in return she herself would help with whatever she is more capable of. I always believed in it but couldn't have said it better myself. I myself always help people with whatever I can. I know all girls aren't strong but I am, and I carry heavy sacs of rice and potatoes (I'm stronger than my brother lol so I carry heavier stuff even though he's 25). I also have a flexible body and it comes so handy when someone drops their pen in a place impossible to reach but I manage to bend in there and get it out in seconds LOL. I know it's funny but I seriously help people when they drop their pens. 😂
So yes, men in general should help women and children.
From my own experience, I don't walk around using men as a shield, but I have been in some situations where a man, either a friend, family member, or total stranger, has stepped in on my behalf to attempt to protect me from harm or harassment. Did I say, oh don't help me, I'm independent, I can do whatever, no because I really did need the help and I appreciated that.
I think it's simply called being a decent human being. I don't think a guy generally sets out to say, I protect women and children, but most people, not just guys, would step in to protect or help someone else in need because they feel the desire to help in their hearts. I can say I've done the absolute same for anyone who needed it.
Yes yes because men are stronger naturally and they are so so awesome! they can do that
In today's society, no. He may get accused of sexual harassment in 20 years
Opinion
47Opinion
everyone should be in the business of protecting women to the best of their ability.
i'd protect a woman the same way i'd protect a man... up until the point that my own personal safety is at risk
Well how do we define duty and responsibility? I would simply state that we are biologically inclined towards it so its rather inescapable as its in our DNA. I would also point out that the reason we do so is because women dictate the speed of reproduction and as such harm to women harms the species. For example, if we have ten women and ten men and nine men die we can still produce ten offspring but if nine women die, even with ten men (or more) you can still only get one offspring. This necessitates that men be the one to take the greater risk as we are far more expendable from a reproductive standpoint then women. That stated we shouldn't do it without something in return. The fact is if we make sacrifices and those sacrifices are not respected then what we have done is not only harmed ourselves but society and our species as we now have shown that selfishness is rewarding and our entire species relies on selflessness to survive. So while we have a duty to protect, that does not make it an entitlement for women, if that makes sense.
I personally don't believe that it is solely one gender's responsibility to protect those who need protecting. I think it's more of a individual's characteristics to WANT to save someone. Person A could just walk by not giving a flying fuck while Person B darts over to ask if they need help, are they hurt, do they need medical attention or simply to ask if they are okay. Caring for a fellow human being must be paramount otherwise just keeping waling because I am sure most people would be like "Well, shit this ain't my business!" or "It wasn't my place to get involved". If you can do something about a particular situation where a person is in need of help then I believe by all means help. It should NOT fall under a man's or woman's responsibility.
No more rights over them, or to them- no custody, no alimony, no incentives, no positives AT ALL- means that we should be absolved of our responsibilities and duties to them. Not any more. I am NO-ONE's slave or lap-dog. They want to preach about equality, want to constantly scream "WE DON'T NEED YOU! FUCK MEN, FUCK THEM ALL, NONE OF US NEED MEN!"? Fine- then you can bloody well fare on your own, without the slightest bit of aid or protection from me. And that goes double for protecting those children which you demand sole custody over, solely out of spite, hatred or disdain for their fathers. You're equal? PROVE IT. You don't need anything from any man? PROVE IT. Children don't need fathers anyway? PROVE IT. Cause none of you are ever getting one jot of help from me, ever again. Fend for yourselves.
We are supposed to protect them, it's in our genetics!
That's TRUE masculinity if you didn't know (Male Justin Bieber fans TRIGGERED)😂
I won't mind at all dying to protect my crush, it would be so fuckin' epic to die in front of her face in the midst of conflict!🔥🔥
I can now imagine that we are walking together in the dark in the woods and suddenly we were attacked by a bear...
Luckily, I had "Run Through The Jungle" playing at full blast in my headphones while I was wrestling with the bear!😎😎😎
Generally it's expected from a man, but an independent strong woman like Anita Sarkeesian need no man to protect her, as can be seen in the picture below. :)
All adults should protect children. Adults should be capable to taking care of themselves, regardless of gender.
Is that Bill and Monica? Lol. Nah, but foreal nowadays girls are claiming not to need guys for that anymore. I guess laws and rules enforce themselves because women definitely aren't the ones enforcing them. Sure there's a female cop here and there. A few female soldiers as well - But "none" are on the front lines. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't ask most guys to be body guards either. But I would be a fool to hire female body guards over male.
s Not a random man to protect a random
Woman but a husbands duty to protect his children and wife yes.
Yes
As much as its anyone responsibility to protect life man, woman, kids, mutants
All to one and one to all
no cuz people can do whatever the fuck they want, they dont need to be constricted by these bullshit notions of how they should behave based on physical uncontrollable characteristics like sex, race, etc.
I think everyone has a responsibility to protect children. I don't really think men have the responsibility to protect women but it's generally not a bad thing to help out others regardless of their gender.
Double standards exist for a reason. The strong should protect the weak, not exploit them. Any man who would not protect his family is not a man at all.
Its ironic. U want men to protect women and children and then u feminists come up with anti male bullshit stuff.
If your talking about women in general like a stranger then hell No! Why should her life have more value then mine? If we're talking about friends and family then yea 4sure I'll look out for you regardless of gender.
Personally i think everyone should have a responsibility to look out for everyone but if the man is the stronger one or if he’s the breadwinner than it falls on him
People have a moral obligation to look out for each other gender doesn’t really need to play into it.
Also bill Clinton was pretty hard core anti-gun…
Nope.
Women wanted male privilege. Well they got male privilege. That means no more special treatment by men.
I have voted for the first answer , because it has always been like this...
No matter what radical feminists want to believe and preach , men from the antiquity till 1800s were the only who went to war and fought for their country and families (women and children). So yes it is a custom... I am not saying that women cannot fight or protect themselves , just men doing it better.
Yes. But women have a similar obligation. All within our individual powers.
Most Helpful Opinions