Why is it more a man's responsibility to risk his life to protect his woman, than the other way round?

Recently, 3 men died protecting their girlfriends from bullets during the batman shooting.

How often do you hear of a woman dying to save her man?

Why is it that when a man fails to act to protect his girlfriend, he is labelled a coward?

But if a woman fails to act, and hides behind her boyfriend instead, she is "just being a woman"?

Update:

Of course that man was a coward!

But then if a woman had done the same thing to her fiance- would she be labelled a coward too? I doubt it...

Update 2:

Im talking about a woman leaving her man behind.

And how often do you hear about a woman risking her life for a man? 3 men died saving their girlfriends in the massacre, did any women die saving their boyfriends?

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes I would label any woman leaving her man's side as a coward. I have thought many times about this and I wouldn't think twice about taking a bullet for my boyfriend.

  • Sugar
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    Why should it not be? Women are weaker and we are the ones who routinely risk our lives, bodies and well being to ensure there is a future for the human race and so men can call themselves fathers.

    "It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles--fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity--are obsolete, even a little embarrassing."

    Besides, if life is to go on it is imperative that there be enough healthy women. One man can impregnate an endless number of women and life can go on, but a woman can only have a certain number of babies and can usually only have one per year even if having them back to back.

    "Our Judeo-Christian civilization has developed the law and custom that, since women bear the physical consequences of the sex act, men must be required to pay in other ways. These laws and customs decree that a man must carry his share by physical protection and financial support of his children and of the woman that bears his children, and also by a code of behavior that benefits and protects both the woman and the children.

    This is accomplished by the institution of the family. Our respect for the family as the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization, is the greatest single achievement in the history of women's rights. It assures a woman the most precious and important right of all- the right to keep her own baby and to be supported and protected in the enjoyment of watching her baby grow and develop." - Phyllis Schlafly, 1972

  • 8 years ago

    There was also a guy who ran away and left his fiance and their child behind. Yes, he kind of was a coward. Especially because he left his kid behind. What kind of parent would do that? For men, it's a combination of protective instinct and social conditioning. But I would protect a friend or anyone I cared about as best as I could, so since you don't know me or every woman in the world I'm not going to take your assumptions very seriously.

    Any woman who leaves her CHILD behind in a situation like that is trash imo.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Because traditionally men have been the protectors of women. Males are genetically larger and stronger. Compare an average woman to an average man, and I guarantee you the man would win in a fight. This birth given physical advantage has led to the mentality that the male should always be the protector of the female.

    It makes sense to me. If a man is to dog as a female is to cat, I would rather have the dog defend me.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Lucy
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    Because, in general, women are less capable of defending themselves in a physical situation – and because the aggressor is usually another man. For many men, the impulse to protect those weaker than themselves is instinctive.

    That said, I can't think of a single instance in all my 43 years when I've been physically protected by a man. I have, however, been assaulted by them. Would you really want to trade places?

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    There are many reasons for this.

    Most important being that women want the best of both worlds. Equality that feminism got them and the benefits of the traditional patriarchal world. Chivalry is still expected of men in courtship in majority of instances

    The other reason is that women, usually, dont desire men as much as men desire women. Sure they have boyfriends, get married, but a greater part of mens appeal to women is based on "what he does for her" rather than what he is. Women value men in their lives for what they do for them (can he make me laugh, will he treat me well, will he be a good provider and a good father, does he love me/long for me, will he entertain me and show me a great time, etc"

    ...men just desire women on an instinctive level.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    because we are living in a feminist society where men have to do things and women don't

  • 8 years ago

    anyone would do anthing for someone they loved

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.