Aww,i love you really much, i am so happy that i helped putting your thoughts in words, i write for people and i love it when people resonate with it, thank you so much Enakshi <3
Perfectly destroys the notion of why protection is not solely a man's act. It is very deeply ingrained believe in our society. But like you said it is true at all. It is not even noticed. Love the lines that protection is not only through violence but through the small habits and speaking up. scrumptious 😋
2. Men are far more likely than women to save their spouse over their child. Both sexes, majority will choose child, but men are 3-4 times more likely to save their wife, than wife the husband.
So there are arguments for men being a protector, for a stranger definitely, and for a wife too over progeny.
Fwiw women are marginally more likely to donate a kidney and far more likely to engage in volunteer work. Though brave, they stretch the definition of protectiveness a little.
ok, so that link is not opening, it’s showing, “403 forbidden”,
so before i counter, let me just clear, the article is based on the idea that manosphere tries to propagate, the rigidity and the black-and-white view.
That protection isn’t simply a man jobs or ability, i am not stripping men of the credit and work they do or have done that made human civilization possible, neither did i say all men are predators or anything similar.
now, if men are far more likely to engage in an act bravery, then they are also far more likely to engage in act of violence, destruction and harm too, no?
plus, men would choose their wife over their child, umm i fail to understand how that is an example of “protection from men” but not of a dilemma? i mean, women choosing their child over husband is also an act of protection only, just the choice differs.
so, your point being?
Either you did not read my article attentively or, maybe i just touched a nerve. In the end, you are trying to balance the counter by cherry picking stats, or simple picking stats from social media, “women donate kidney” and all thing, there are certain biological part men are more likely to donate than women, so again, your point being?
also, protection is an act of empathy as much as it’s of anything else, and Indian society is highly unempathetic, both men and women. So, the link you’ve attached i assume is not be based on the data of the Indian population/society, even tho the link failed to open. So, it cancels your “men are far more likely to engage in an act bravery” in the context of Indian society.
I am making this assumption as India rarely perform surveys and all on these question and topics.
Weird, country specific internet? Anyway the link isn't that important, it basically says men are far more likely to save a stranger, something you are not disputing.
The contention is whether men are protectors, I am arguing that they are.
It is another matter that they are most likely protecting loved ones or strangers or society in general from the threat posed by other men.
So you would be justified in saying men are destroyers too. Far more than women.
I don't think protection is really an empathy thing. You can declare this to be narrow minded and that I've got my panties in a twist, but just as a common understanding of the word goes, protection is about saving people from harm. Men are better at that.
I introduced the dilemma because men are quite often willing to save a spouse who will not save them back. It is a hypothetical where physical prowess is not relevant.
The stats aren't cherry picked at all, I tried to find counter stats where women excel and the best I ended up with were kidney donation.
Not to get dragged into a new topic, but I find India to be far more empathetic than other societies I have lived in.
Also umm yeah, it's narrow-mindness, but if the narrow mindness isn't resulting in harm and if you're a man, which I assume you're. And if you think protection is a man’s duty and you live up to that duty, then like wonderful man, what else can I wish for
Also sir, I was not talking about the internet, but people in society and when internet has an effect on society, you know what I mean? I mean protection is not happening on the internet, or internet alone, it's happening on ground most of the time, no?
Yeah but the man isn't saving the child? So your point being? And if you're saving people from harm, that is empathetic, your point?and if you say men are protectors then where did I say they're not? And you don't need to justify me for saying men are destructive more than women, alright? Cause the stats justify my statment even if you wouldn't. And are we solving mathematical equations here? I guess not, so what is up with this "men are more destructive but they're more protective too" like what?
Man what are your blabbering, if you've made your judgement than why are you commenting here? Just go on with your day and don't spoil mine with your rigidity
I actually liked your writing quite a bit. I just didn't agree with the premise. It does feel a bit like we are talking at each other, and that I was annoying you, so am going to drop it. Keep writing.
Dayum good really loved the layer to layer breakdown
Glad you liked <3
P I love this, I love you. I not only feel disgustingly educated I really see my thoughts in words finaly
Aww,i love you really much, i am so happy that i helped putting your thoughts in words, i write for people and i love it when people resonate with it, thank you so much Enakshi <3
🫶🫶🫶🫶
Perfectly destroys the notion of why protection is not solely a man's act. It is very deeply ingrained believe in our society. But like you said it is true at all. It is not even noticed. Love the lines that protection is not only through violence but through the small habits and speaking up. scrumptious 😋
"Scrumptious" :p, hehe. Thank you <3
if masculinity was the ultimate symbol of protection
Mothers wouldn't exist,
Lovers wouldn’t exist,
The warriors wouldn’t cry of their goddess,
The kings wouldn’t bow to her,
The gods wouldn't have called for her,
The Trishul wouldn’t be in her hand
Or, The garland of skulls on her neck.
LOOOOVE THE ANALOGYYYY
If Arjun likes it, its peakk
My stamp of approval
La la la la la
?
Sorry
Huh?
Excellent piece, the writing was great, snappy, to the point.
I just want to highlight some information, this is just for the sake of a counter argument, if it annoys or angers, I'm going to drop the point.
1. Men are far more likely to engage in an act of physical bravery to protect a stranger.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-of-the-ooze/202207/who-is-willing-to-risk-their-life-to-save-others-and-why
2. Men are far more likely than women to save their spouse over their child. Both sexes, majority will choose child, but men are 3-4 times more likely to save their wife, than wife the husband.
So there are arguments for men being a protector, for a stranger definitely, and for a wife too over progeny.
Fwiw women are marginally more likely to donate a kidney and far more likely to engage in volunteer work. Though brave, they stretch the definition of protectiveness a little.
ok, so that link is not opening, it’s showing, “403 forbidden”,
so before i counter, let me just clear, the article is based on the idea that manosphere tries to propagate, the rigidity and the black-and-white view.
That protection isn’t simply a man jobs or ability, i am not stripping men of the credit and work they do or have done that made human civilization possible, neither did i say all men are predators or anything similar.
now, if men are far more likely to engage in an act bravery, then they are also far more likely to engage in act of violence, destruction and harm too, no?
plus, men would choose their wife over their child, umm i fail to understand how that is an example of “protection from men” but not of a dilemma? i mean, women choosing their child over husband is also an act of protection only, just the choice differs.
so, your point being?
Either you did not read my article attentively or, maybe i just touched a nerve. In the end, you are trying to balance the counter by cherry picking stats, or simple picking stats from social media, “women donate kidney” and all thing, there are certain biological part men are more likely to donate than women, so again, your point being?
also, protection is an act of empathy as much as it’s of anything else, and Indian society is highly unempathetic, both men and women. So, the link you’ve attached i assume is not be based on the data of the Indian population/society, even tho the link failed to open. So, it cancels your “men are far more likely to engage in an act bravery” in the context of Indian society.
I am making this assumption as India rarely perform surveys and all on these question and topics.
Weird, country specific internet? Anyway the link isn't that important, it basically says men are far more likely to save a stranger, something you are not disputing.
The contention is whether men are protectors, I am arguing that they are.
It is another matter that they are most likely protecting loved ones or strangers or society in general from the threat posed by other men.
So you would be justified in saying men are destroyers too. Far more than women.
I don't think protection is really an empathy thing. You can declare this to be narrow minded and that I've got my panties in a twist, but just as a common understanding of the word goes, protection is about saving people from harm. Men are better at that.
I introduced the dilemma because men are quite often willing to save a spouse who will not save them back. It is a hypothetical where physical prowess is not relevant.
The stats aren't cherry picked at all, I tried to find counter stats where women excel and the best I ended up with were kidney donation.
Not to get dragged into a new topic, but I find India to be far more empathetic than other societies I have lived in.
Also umm yeah, it's narrow-mindness, but if the narrow mindness isn't resulting in harm and if you're a man, which I assume you're. And if you think protection is a man’s duty and you live up to that duty, then like wonderful man, what else can I wish for
Also sir, I was not talking about the internet, but people in society and when internet has an effect on society, you know what I mean? I mean protection is not happening on the internet, or internet alone, it's happening on ground most of the time, no?
Yeah but the man isn't saving the child? So your point being? And if you're saving people from harm, that is empathetic, your point?and if you say men are protectors then where did I say they're not? And you don't need to justify me for saying men are destructive more than women, alright? Cause the stats justify my statment even if you wouldn't. And are we solving mathematical equations here? I guess not, so what is up with this "men are more destructive but they're more protective too" like what?
Man what are your blabbering, if you've made your judgement than why are you commenting here? Just go on with your day and don't spoil mine with your rigidity
Fair enough, as promised. I drop all my points. Feel free to delete. Enjoy your day blabber free.
So, are your dropping the points cause I made sense, or you got me annoyed? Cause you didn't.
Coversation can happen without resulting in change of somebody's stance or without getting any one party annoyed, Have a good day <3
I actually liked your writing quite a bit. I just didn't agree with the premise. It does feel a bit like we are talking at each other, and that I was annoying you, so am going to drop it. Keep writing.