Do we even know what these supposed protectors are thinking?

I often hear men speak on what they believe are their roles at home and society in general and there seems to be consensus among them on their duty to protect. This notion is widely supported by women as well. It is believed that they are best equipped for this protector role because of their physical strength and other assumed traits like emotional stability and impressive decision-making skills. I think it is largely because of the tacit agreement between them to reserve both respect and fear for each other only and see about the rest of us on a case-by-case basis.

While I welcome the idea of there being a protector in families and society, the current requirements for entry just seem insufficient. I also dread the clearly inextricable bond between this role and the paternalism with which it is often it is carried out. It is my view that things like the ensuring of safety both in the home and outside of it require collective effort and should not hinge on presence of a particular sex in a home or community nor on the assumed abilities of that sex. Physical strength is entirely insufficient to justify this as a default position for men because it negates psychological makeup and fitness of these protectors.

In what I still find a deeply unsettling conversation with a male colleague a few years ago, he calmly told me the most terrifying thing about himself. I cannot recall how we ended up discussing what each of our next steps would be in the event that a robber managed to gain access to the office we were working in late one night. The collective assumption was that the criminal would have entered the building intending to steal valuables that they could sell for cash. My colleague said he would gladly hand over the possessions as required to keep us both safe. However, if the criminal decided to harm our persons, specifically by sexual assault, he would not interfere.

I asked why he would not interfere when another person is attempting to assault me sexually and he said blankly: “Because what if I interfere and he decides to assault me instead? I would not recover from that. You on the other hand are a woman and this sort of thing happens to you all the time. You would know how to get through it.” I remember searching his face for regret or at least discomfort at saying something so incredibly vile. He too was a card-carrying member of the “we are the protectors” association.

We need to interrogate the psychology of anyone we entrust with our safety and that of others. The individual and collective ideologies men hold regarding people outside of themselves need to be observed and thoroughly interrogated to assess their fitness for being protectors. In my rage mixed with profound disappointment at my colleague, I reminded him that he was both a father to a daughter and a spouse to a wife. I asked if his position would be any different if the victim of the assault were any of them and in not so many words, he admitted that it would not.

The few times I have relayed this story to people, including men, they have openly criticised his utterings and character. But soon after they too would exhibit misogynistic behaviour, which I think is foundational to the kind of thought processes that informed my colleagues horrifying “logic.” The jokes are not jokes, the stereotypes are not banter, these things are foundational to the perceptions held and ultimately the actions that threaten our safety and that of others. Passively allotting roles and their responsibilities in our homes and society as a whole will likely be to our detriment.