Video But Who Will Protect You??
Video But Who Will Protect You??
Yesterday, 9:01 AM
(Dec 19 2025, 11:46 PM)Clover why do we want to promote/encourage a machismo culture of men attacking each other to protect women? That is not to say the men who stepped in to fight the attacker weren't brave for trying to help protect someone, I just don't vibe with mocking men for not attacking other humans..? Idk just seems weird to me.
I think it's good to encourage men to physically step in. Most men have the strength to fight off other men and it makes sense to encourage them to use that physical strength to defend others, especially those deemed weaker. But the way the patriarchy does it encourages aggression for aggression's sake, frequently due to a man's hurt ego or posessiveness, which is also what motivates a lot of what gets passed off as "protective" attitudes. Some men do physically protect their partners from other men, or protect random women as part of the "protect the weak" attitude, but then also beat their wives at home. And way way more men do not extend any of this "protection" to women when it comes to things like rape, relationship violence and overall injustice that women face at the hands of men. This is why there is so often no connection between a man's willingness to "physically protect" and a man's commitment to women's rights.
So often, aggression in a man is an ego thing that has nothing to do with caring about women. At best it's a general moral standard of protecting the weak from immediate physical harm, but that's not exactly feminism, it's just general morality. At worst, it's the machismo thing where men duke it out over who gets to own another person, and project their own masculinity upon their ego being slighted. Which also means they will easily turn even on those who are weaker if they do not appease their ego enough.
Also, while it makes sense to encourage men to use their strength to protect the weak and to find that morally commendable (though as I said, it has nothing to do with women's rights), it's perfectly understandable for the man to freeze when faced with a threat that's more dangerous, or even just from being unused to physical conflict. The latter has happened to me, and I don't understand why it should be seen as some immoral horrible thing, especially given the actual immoral horrible things that men do to women every day, many of whom are these exact same "protectors" that we're told we owe our lives to.
Quote:While perhaps you're not "championing chivalry," the NYP video is.
She literally says "Moids who cannot even do that don't deserve female companionship.", with the corollary that men who will fight off men, do. As if the main problem in women's day-to-day life are random men attacking them on the streets, instead of their parasitic "protectors". And also according to this, the most respectable feminist man imaginable should be dumped if he froze in a knife fight. Great priorities. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they just happen to match the patriarchal protection racket to a T.
Edited Yesterday, 10:41 AM by YesYourNigel.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
YesYourNigel
Yesterday, 9:01 AM #11(Dec 19 2025, 11:46 PM)Clover why do we want to promote/encourage a machismo culture of men attacking each other to protect women? That is not to say the men who stepped in to fight the attacker weren't brave for trying to help protect someone, I just don't vibe with mocking men for not attacking other humans..? Idk just seems weird to me.
I think it's good to encourage men to physically step in. Most men have the strength to fight off other men and it makes sense to encourage them to use that physical strength to defend others, especially those deemed weaker. But the way the patriarchy does it encourages aggression for aggression's sake, frequently due to a man's hurt ego or posessiveness, which is also what motivates a lot of what gets passed off as "protective" attitudes. Some men do physically protect their partners from other men, or protect random women as part of the "protect the weak" attitude, but then also beat their wives at home. And way way more men do not extend any of this "protection" to women when it comes to things like rape, relationship violence and overall injustice that women face at the hands of men. This is why there is so often no connection between a man's willingness to "physically protect" and a man's commitment to women's rights.
So often, aggression in a man is an ego thing that has nothing to do with caring about women. At best it's a general moral standard of protecting the weak from immediate physical harm, but that's not exactly feminism, it's just general morality. At worst, it's the machismo thing where men duke it out over who gets to own another person, and project their own masculinity upon their ego being slighted. Which also means they will easily turn even on those who are weaker if they do not appease their ego enough.
Also, while it makes sense to encourage men to use their strength to protect the weak and to find that morally commendable (though as I said, it has nothing to do with women's rights), it's perfectly understandable for the man to freeze when faced with a threat that's more dangerous, or even just from being unused to physical conflict. The latter has happened to me, and I don't understand why it should be seen as some immoral horrible thing, especially given the actual immoral horrible things that men do to women every day, many of whom are these exact same "protectors" that we're told we owe our lives to.
Quote:While perhaps you're not "championing chivalry," the NYP video is.
She literally says "Moids who cannot even do that don't deserve female companionship.", with the corollary that men who will fight off men, do. As if the main problem in women's day-to-day life are random men attacking them on the streets, instead of their parasitic "protectors". And also according to this, the most respectable feminist man imaginable should be dumped if he froze in a knife fight. Great priorities. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they just happen to match the patriarchal protection racket to a T.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing