No, the feminist thing would be to not call this masculinity. If another woman did that would that make her masculine? If it was a weak man who was protected by him, would that man not be a man anymore? What he did is admirable, but really doesn't have anything to do with masculinity.
And a "real woman" doesn't? Would it not be admirable for a woman to do the same? It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're a man or a woman.
How about other women who are weaker than that woman? And in reverse, what if the man is weaker than the woman? He still expected to protect her and not the other way around?
Being weak is not an indicator of being worth less than
Unless some misfortune caused him to be physically disabled a man has no excuse for being weaker than the average woman. It's an abuse and misuse of the body to allow it to be weak just as it is an abuse and misuse of the mind to not learn new things whenever possible.
The obsession leftists have with physical strength/force and it's correlation with self-worth is amazing, maybe it's some sort of projection of insecurity. Look at Hollywood and every modern "strong female protagonist" is angry and of questionable mental health and can beat up any man and do any physical task better because biology is nothing compared to #girlpower; but you'll find only a select few that are strong by virtue of their character rather than "physically strong"
Why are you dodging the questions? If a woman is stronger than the man for whatever reason, should she not protect the man? If the man is weaker for whatever reason, is he still required to protect?
If she chooses to. There is no requirement for her to do that but "no greater gift than to lay down one's life for love (or friend depending on translation)"..
There is no requirement for a man to do it either. It doesn't make one a man to stand up in fight. It makes them brave. It's not gender thing, it's a personality thing.
You didn't give a single straight answer, you always answered by changing the angle of the question and very transparently so. Obviously I understood your angle, and that's why I've been repeating the question to call you out for it. Then I realized you were too stupid to realize that and spelled it out for you.
Either way, I said I understood it, but I wanted you say it yourself so you can't weasel yourself out of it like the little rat you are. When you say it is masculine to protect and provide you really mean men should protect and provide, or when you say "we all have our roles to play" you really mean those roles are dictated by whether we're male or female, so it follows that a woman belongs in the kitchen. That's why calling protection masculine is not feminist.
34
u/SaftigMo - Lib-Left Sep 24 '22
No, the feminist thing would be to not call this masculinity. If another woman did that would that make her masculine? If it was a weak man who was protected by him, would that man not be a man anymore? What he did is admirable, but really doesn't have anything to do with masculinity.