I’m reading through a lot of the pieces that the Good Men Project is featuring in their MRA series. Two have caught my eye, Paul Elam’s and Pelle Billing’s. They are worth a read if only because they get down to the heart of what problems MRAs and rank-and-file men are actually dealing with – cutting through both the strawmen that feminists have created and the less diplomatic elements of male commenters around the Sphere.
In the comments section of Billing’s piece, Sallystrange wrote, about Billing’s assertion that modern husbands serve the role of protector for their wives:
Excuse me, what? Are you arming yourself and standing watch at night while wifey sleeps? Are you accompanying her at all times whenever she ventures out of the house, armed and alert and prepared for hand-to-hand combat with your mad karate skillz? Do you live in Somalia, where death by firearm or mortar is a real threat? If not, then I propose that the value of such protection is zero and you don’t get to negotiate some sort of compensation for labor you perform only in your imagination. This is the Western world after all; most of us are privileged enough that direct threats to our physical survival are vanishingly rare.
Britney Spears’ bodyguard rarely if ever has to spring into action to defend the pop starlet from violent attack. Spears is really paying mostly for the bodyguard’s mere presence which serves as a deterrent against attack or harassment. The bodyguard as deterrent is actually a more important role than bodyguard as Chuck Norris.
In this age where we mentally itemize and bill for every thing we do (“OK, we’re even on the dessert because you gave me a ride to work”), husbands and boyfriends deserve some sort of recognition for the role they play in protecting their women. This protection doesn’t have to be proven by defensive gun shots or fights in parking lots; the protection functions much like insurance. Not only is it there to protect you (financially) in case of an accident, it helps you proceed with confidence and peace of mind through a rough and tumble world.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Good job highlighting that comment, Chuck. I believe it’s very telling, and indicative of a larger trend: the act of not only rejecting chivalry, but deeming it misogynistic.
A few recent examples are the high school wrestler who was DQ’d after refusing to wrestle a girl, and the CBS brass being attacked for considering pulling their female reporters out of harmful assignments in the wake of the Lara Logan assault.
Think about it: would saying “I appreciate the offer, but no thanks” to male protection be unreasonable? Of course not. But to say no while reacting to the mere suggestion of chivalry with contempt, snark, and anger? Geez, no wonder men are so confused. And no wonder chivalry is dead.
Most men have naturally chivalrous instincts, especially when it comes to protecting women from physical harm and dangerous men. To think of these instincts as prima facie evidence misogyny is to think of men in general as inherently flawed, inferior, and useless.
Which is probably the whole point of the exercise, anyway.
If a man’s protection is worth nothing, than walking through central park, naked, at night, with $20 bill taped to your back, should be no different with or without your boyfriend/husband present.
Any volunteers?
As for rejecting chivalry as misogynistic, we may note that whenever a woman is attacked and male bystanders do NOT leap to her defense, the men are criticized for their failure — “Why didn’t those worms man up and help that poor defenseless woman!?”
Real world example…
I was watching “The First 48” on A&E which I assume most of the readers know is a show that follows real homicide detectives on murder cases.
I was watching a couple weeks ago and a 79 year old woman had been murdered in an apartment complex. The old lady was getting her groceries out of her car when some little punk walked up to her with a gun and told her to hand over her car keys. The old lady responded by beating the punk with her purse and bags of groceries. The little punk shot the old lady and ran off leaving the little old lady to die…nothing was taken by the punk.
While investing the case the detectives learned that the little punk had been seen approaching another woman at the apartment complex earlier. The detectives canvassed the area in hopes of finding this woman who had been approached earlier. They found her and knew she was one of the keys in identifying and placing the little punk at the murder scene.
The younger woman who had been approached earlier told the detectives about her run in with the little punk…WHAT SHE DID SAVED HER LIFE!!! She told the detectives that the little punk walked up and asked if she needed help with her groceries, she said no and told little punk “MY HUSBAND IS COMING OUT TO HELP.” The husband was not home. I will bet that if this woman had said just “no” and left it at that she would have been the one dead.
Real world example that men do indeed protect and sometimes we do not even have to be there.
Me again, here is the link to the episode (it starts off with what I just stated)
http://bcove.me/walhjvwx
Im sorry, the link is for all episodes…click “#168 The Slip/Pure Victim” to the right of the video player.
Chris:
Perfect example of what I’m talking about. Men dont’ even go around seeking pay for this “service”. We just do it.
It’s time for men to break down the ledger, atomize costs, and charge accordingly. Thank you for that link.
Pingback: Married women are the safest « Traditional Catholicism
Pingback: The value of men as protectors. | Dalrock
Pingback: Jigsaw Falling Into Place « Gucci Little Piggy