It’s not a man’s job to go into dangerous situations, dangerous situations are not always more dangerous for women than for men, and situations that are “more dangerous for women” than “for men” aren’t always more dangerous for a specific woman than for a specific man.
It’s not gender roles, it’s a request based on specific circumstances that is voluntarily granted. The woman could go herself and it wouldn’t be inappropriate. The man could refuse and it wouldn’t be inappropriate. The situation could be more dangerous for the man (e.g. if she’s white and he’s latino and ICE are in town) and it wouldn’t be emasculating.
In this case, the logic favors the man taking the risk. Because we live in a patriarchal society, the logic often favors the man taking the risk. Even in an egalitarian society the forms of risk might match up with physiological differences in a way that causes the logic to statistically favor people of one gender taking the risk.
The important part is that it’s free association, not roles. The notion that people should be equal and “colorblind” is an intentionally malicious neoliberal reading of social justice intended to dismiss a generation of minority activists as “disciminatory in the opposite way” and to serve as an excuse to deregulate protections for women and minorities. Something that we should all unlearn ASAP so we can see each other as human beings and help each other.
Using logic and physiology to justify why a man or a woman should do a certain thing is certainly not a unique or original take…
I mean I see what you’re saying, and if I had a wife I would gladly take risks for her so that she didn’t have to. But I’ve been told in the past that I was being sexist for having that mentality. Sort of an “I’m not a delicate flower and I don’t need you to do things for me!” type of situation.
So, being amenable to disagreement as I am, I adjusted my mentality. Women can be heros in stories, and they can take risks and handle dangerous situations in real life, too.
That’s why I find it a bit jarring when suddenly it seems the feminist take has become “Actually, men should do dangerous things for the women in their lives.” It kinda just feels like they’re willing to argue any position that 1) disagrees with something a man says; and 2) is convenient for their purposes at a given moment.
It’s just not consistent, and I have a hard time feeling convinced by anyone whose argument is inconsistent…
It’s not a man’s job to go into dangerous situations, dangerous situations are not always more dangerous for women than for men, and situations that are “more dangerous for women” than “for men” aren’t always more dangerous for a specific woman than for a specific man.
It’s not gender roles, it’s a request based on specific circumstances that is voluntarily granted. The woman could go herself and it wouldn’t be inappropriate. The man could refuse and it wouldn’t be inappropriate. The situation could be more dangerous for the man (e.g. if she’s white and he’s latino and ICE are in town) and it wouldn’t be emasculating.
In this case, the logic favors the man taking the risk. Because we live in a patriarchal society, the logic often favors the man taking the risk. Even in an egalitarian society the forms of risk might match up with physiological differences in a way that causes the logic to statistically favor people of one gender taking the risk.
The important part is that it’s free association, not roles. The notion that people should be equal and “colorblind” is an intentionally malicious neoliberal reading of social justice intended to dismiss a generation of minority activists as “disciminatory in the opposite way” and to serve as an excuse to deregulate protections for women and minorities. Something that we should all unlearn ASAP so we can see each other as human beings and help each other.
Using logic and physiology to justify why a man or a woman should do a certain thing is certainly not a unique or original take…
I mean I see what you’re saying, and if I had a wife I would gladly take risks for her so that she didn’t have to. But I’ve been told in the past that I was being sexist for having that mentality. Sort of an “I’m not a delicate flower and I don’t need you to do things for me!” type of situation.
So, being amenable to disagreement as I am, I adjusted my mentality. Women can be heros in stories, and they can take risks and handle dangerous situations in real life, too.
That’s why I find it a bit jarring when suddenly it seems the feminist take has become “Actually, men should do dangerous things for the women in their lives.” It kinda just feels like they’re willing to argue any position that 1) disagrees with something a man says; and 2) is convenient for their purposes at a given moment.
It’s just not consistent, and I have a hard time feeling convinced by anyone whose argument is inconsistent…