I just read an article that outlined ways for men to be better “allies” of women. There were many useful ideas. Among them though, was the suggestion that men not be “paternalistic” for fear of communicating to women that they are being perceived as incapable of handling static. For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore that we cherish women who are maternalistic, which is rooted squarely in their gender and is clearly a bias. I will ignore the fundamental assumptions associated with alimony which disproportionately impacts men, even when they are financially worse off than their female partners; or that the amount is not calculated on need, but is based on what he can “afford”. I will ignore many points inconvenient to the opposition; or as in the instance of chivalry, points that at a minimum complicate their stance, given that chivalry is predicated exclusively on gender bias. Instead, let’s focus on paternalism and the associated “why”.

I have had numerous disagreements with independent female friends and associates over time because they felt as if I was encroaching. For example, I may have suggested that she take out her keys well before getting to the front door, or that she be aware of her surroundings and people in the vicinity, or that she take a firmer stance on a matter. I was never impolite in the communication of these thoughts, though I may have hinted at impatience when the reminders continued to go unheeded. I always acted with conviction and I even do this with my own mother. My conviction is that women need to be more aware of their safety than men do, because they are at greater risk, all things being equal. It is fair to conclude that men are less likely to try to bully another man or pull the wool over his eyes than they would a woman. If women think that’s sexist, I wonder how many of them truly think that they can bench more than the guys they know, or run faster, or throw further and harder. Yes, it is that simple, as I will explain in what I refer to as the “civility assumption”.

It would be a lot harder to physically take advantage of me and many of the guys I know than it would be to accost and physically control many of the women I know. How about the men and women you know? Most women are not stronger than their rapist attackers, for example. Given that most attacks are more than just an overzealous attempt at engaging in a spirited debate between the sexes, the major flaw that plagues these articles and the comprehensiveness of “gender equality” is the presumption of civil mindedness in handling uncivil behavior. Women, well-intentioned, strong, smart, and competent as they may be, are feeding into and fueling this when they skew beyond the point of gender balance, or even presume gender equality in ALL things. To presume or promote the unwarranted assumption that spiritual and intellectual equality translates into, or should be lumped together with physical equality, is an egregious error. We have this problem because we are fortunate enough to live in a civilized environment. For all of its flaws and exceptions, civility is in fact the mainstay of our society. Therefore, it is easy to presume that we are all on an equal footing, because we forget that men used to have to kill and build things. It is easy to conflate what ought to be and what is. This is the crux of the issue. We reside in a world of civility, but are subject to indiscriminate and unpredictable acts of incivility. They are the exception, which is why reality is easy to forget, but they are devastating when experienced. Adding to the trauma of the event is the reminder that victims tends to be more physically weak, and that does not comport with a woman’s ideas of mental and emotional equality. However, crime does not generally roost within refined spaces governed by words and an exchange of ideas, it is overwhelmingly physical.

Women who frequently experience or witness violence are not deluded in this way, they can see the differences quite clearly. Their complaint is often in the pursuit of intellectual and spiritual equality, for example, in the defense of the right to go to school. They should be able to go to school, and make the same money for the same work; but they understand why the men who care about them hover and remind and prod them to be safe and do things in a certain way. The smart ones don’t need to be reminded. Nor do the ones who’ve been made victims. The “sexist assumption” does not reside with me and others like me, it resides with the rapists and burglars who are more likely to prey on women. It resides with men who are more likely to mislead, trick, and defraud women. It resides in people who ignore realities, and inconveniences like case studies and statistics., and that includes other women. The entire debate may be crystalized into two questions, which is really the inverse of one: As a woman under attack, would you rather be defended by a strong man or a strong woman? Would you rather be attacked by a strong man or a women? Through many elements of paternalism, women have found allies.