JUST A THOUGHT ON - 'THE THING WITH SOME OR MOST MEN IS THAT....' PART 2.

 

Contextual relevance.- In doing this post, I do acknowledge that that none of it is likely to apply to all women and females. 

Due to demographical factors such as the females age range, peer groups, cultural, religious and social circumstances, ethnicity, nationality, relationship statuses and political and economic circumstances.

Or where the woman, living with her partner, is engaged in carrying out other tasks which a man, living on his own, would have to carry out, as well as 'bread-winning activities'. 

Thereby freeing up the man to contribute more time engaged in the 'bwa.'

And then there is 'the thing with some or most men', where there is the belief, the expectation, and even the reality of them protecting their families. 

Usually from conflicts and wars. Something we could consider as a paradox; as 'the paradoxical thing about most men.' 

The fact that men are expected to protect their families and themselves from, yes, other men. Placing in the position of being both the aggressor and the protector.

Which leads us onto 'the thing about some or most men being predatoral, aggressive anid violent.'

A paradox which does give rise to this question: What if men did not pose the threat they do to the survival of the human species? 

Would there still be this need for them to perform this role of 'protector of women, and, yes, children? 

It is not even that they are 'poacher or predator come 'game-keeper' or 'protector of women.'  It seems accurate for the answer to be, 'no'; there would not be the need for men to be performing this 'protector role.'

Men, arguably, continue to perform or be perceived as performing these two apparently incompatible roles alternatingly. 

It might even be argued that they have a vested interest in promoting or sustaining the threat which they pose to women and their species, in order to validate and ensure the survival of their 'protector role.' 

To be continued!