Real Men Protect All Women — Dismantling

There's an interesting phenomenon in my world I would like to describe.

It is nothing new historically — the ideology has existed in various forms for at least thousands of years. Almost every culture has a story about women needing to be protected by their men.

But on the face of it, this doesn't seem like a bad thing. It doesn't even seem unreasonable:

"You are a strong man. This is a weak woman. You ought to protect her because you can do it well."

It makes sense. Especially if you only analyze it on a superficial level.

But the deeper reasons for this ideology? And for why it continues to exist even today? And only seems to be growing stronger and stronger?

Introduction: Myth As Stated

At face value, you probably should protect women if you are a man.

If you think about this logically, there isn't anything obviously wrong about this statement:

• The world is dangerous (true)
• Men are often strong (true)
• Women are often weaker (true)
• Therefore you ought to protect women (???)

The fourth statement is an overextension — hence my "???" — but it logically follows, so it's hard to dismiss it as stated.

But consider the context:

In the 21st century, humans live in societies of strangers. Full of weak women, true. But stranger-women nonetheless.

The myth does not explain why the protection ought to be extended to complete strangers — which is what the myth demands of you.

Most men don't have to be told to defend the women close to them. Kin protection is natural for most and need not verbal encouragement.

That protection doesn't extend to complete strangers. Humans are not wired that way.

And the ideology literally states:

"Women are entitled to men's protection because they are weaker."

It's used to mean ALL women. Without exception.

And for some inexplicable reason... this ideology has THRIVED for thousands of years — in one form or another.

And I want to explain how and why.

(I will have written a post about a very similar ideology known as feminism, but for now, I want to concentrate SPECIFICALLY on the "protect all women" ideology. It's less complicated and can be explained much, much easier than feminism)

...

The story begins with... military conscription.

Conscription Ideologies: Real Men Protect All Women

(Historically, this was its only real purpose. In the 20th-21st century, the ideology extends to other things, but it's evolving as we speak, so it's hard to pinpoint when and how it works apart from conscription)

Men are often manipulated into fighting wars "for the women" they are protecting.

This gets phrased differently, e.g:

• You should fight because the enemy wants to kill, rape, and oppress your women
• You should fight because real men have a duty to protect women
• You should fight because women are innocent and pure, and thus they deserve our protection
• You are not a man if you refuse to protect women from violence
• I don't respect men who are cowardly and don't risk themselves for women
• Our culture respects and provides for all women, while men fight and protect

The bottom line: Fighting protects women, and you are a man. Therefore, it is your duty to fight for them.

There is so much wrong with this logic, I don't even know where to begin.

It's a farrago of ideologies, myths, emotional manipulation, and self-deception. Untangling it requires you to jump between myths and mistaken beliefs, dismantling them one by one. Not difficult, just annoying and confusing.

Also, understand that this "real men protect all women" idea is an emotional argument. You can use logic to dismantle it easily enough, but the consequences — emotional men who feel personally attacked — are very real and come with heavy social costs.

Fighting this argument and making your case to real people will not earn you friends or respect. Indeed, in modern societies, arguing against this dominant idea often comes with real social, economic, and even legal consequences. Not to mention comfortable women who will use your dismissal as evidence that you are "one of the bad men" that deserve bad things to happen to you.

Enough said. Let's dismantle this argument:

Objection #1: "Our enemies will kill and enslave your women!"

My Answer: Not all enemies kill, rape, and oppress women. (My weakest argument)

This isn't the strongest argument I have, but it's a fact about war and what happens to conquered populations.

Mass atrocities happen, but they are not a universal phenomenon. All sides rape and kill women — even "their" own women, when they have the chance — so you cannot honestly say that "your side" is full of angels who never hurt women, and it's only "those other guys" who are all beasts and monsters who hurt women.

Why certain men choose to oppress, rape, and kill women has NOTHING to do with the flag they are fighting under.

So while it is true that armed invaders are a potential threat to women, it ignores the fact that some armed invaders are also respectful to unarmed civilians and do not wish to harm them.

War is very complicated. Anyone who uses black-and-white arguments like this one is trying to sell you something.

Objection #2: "Your women need your protection!"

My Answer: Not "my women".

If you are a "democracy", then you also have to acknowledge that women are free citizens — at least nominally.

I do not own these women. They are not "mine" in any meaningful sense.

The notion that these are "my women" is an abstract ideology that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground.

They aren't "mine" any more than I am "theirs".

The claim is inherently predatory; because they are "your" women, the women are also entitled to your protection and life. In a way, it's a claim of reciprocal obligation: your women are "yours", but you and your life are also "theirs" to spend. Give and take.

This is 100% false.

Especially in democracies, women have zero obligations toward men as a group. Only men have "obligations" that include risking everything for them.

No society will shun or punish its women for not sacrificing themselves for "their men"; that same society will punish men who refuse to sacrifice for "their women".

Even oppressive societies merely expect women to submit. Not sacrifice.

This is NOT:

• Moral obligation
• Reciprocal obligation
• Law of nature
• Payment

Men get an ideological payment, women get a real benefit. That's the whole point of this argument.

Anyone who seriously makes it is also implicitly arguing that your life is less valuable than women's, only due to the fact that you were born with different body parts.

They cannot say that explicitly, because then nobody would agree to fight for them. So they pretend that the women they want you to preserve are "your women" — even when they demonstrably aren't yours.

Objection #3: "All men have a duty to protect women!" 

My Answer: Women are not automatically entitled to men's protection.

There is no automatic moral obligation for men to protect women simply because they are women.

In the same way there is no automatic obligation for women to do the same for men.

Once more, we have a case of a person demanding your sacrifice for nothing real in return. Anyone who makes this argument seriously is being dishonest, predatory, or both.

This idea can actually be traced back to the "gentleman" ideology — a so-called "traditional" idea according to which men have an "innate male responsibility" to look after and protect all women.

Men are the disposable gender, women are the pure-hearted and perfect gender that is worthy of preservation.

That's what it basically comes down to. That's what it's always been about.

But it also preemptively prevents men from "expecting rewards" upon return. Yes, you were a good boy who risked his life for "your women". Good dog. Have some ideology-bone as payment. But remember: It was your "duty". Women don't actually owe you anything back.

This makes it seem as though women are allowed to expect your sacrifice, while you are not allowed to expect so much as a thank you. Let alone a reward commensurate with the risk you undertook on their behalf.

Because it was your "duty".

Objection #4: "Women are innocent and pure; that's why they deserve our protection!"

My Answer: Women-are-wonderful fallacy, ignores human nature, idealizes women. A very naive worldview. (My main argument)

Everything about "protecting women" rests on this premise.

The premise as though women are "the better sex":

• Incapable of evil
• Pure-hearted
• Emotional, empathetic
• Delicate
• Innocent
• Truthful

And so on.

This then gets contrasted with men, who are presumed to be biologically driven to do the opposite acts — namely: committing evil, lying, stealing, violence, oppression, etc.

Anyone who claims women don't do any of those things is self-deceived, naive, or is trying to sell you something.

The truth?

Women are not biologically morally superior. It's a stupid idea that elevates them for no reason at all. History, biology, psychology, human nature, etc all contradict it.

Anyone who has ever met real women and didn't actively construct justifications to explain their bad behaviour will tell you that, actually, women are not pure and innocent after all. They are capable of the same bad behaviour that men-as-gender get accused of.

Whether or not women act on their bad impulses is another story; power dynamics mean that, most of the time, women cannot afford to behave badly to men who are physically, economically, or socially stronger than them.

But when a woman has some kind of advantage over another man or a woman? They often use it to abuse and bully other people, especially when they think it can benefit them in some way.

And that is an innate human tendency. And it has nothing to do with whether or not you were born male or female.

Certain interest groups claim otherwise; "Chivalrous knights" will tell you that women are delicate and innocent, feminists will tell you that women never oppress men and only men oppress women...

They have no leg to stand on. Only ideologies and threats.

And reality contradicts them at every step of the way.

They don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Objection #5: "You are not a real man if you don't risk your life for women!"

My Answer: Emotional argument, ideologies, no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

The idea goes:

1. Women are innocent and pure (biologically morally superior)
2. "Real men" are those that recognize it and protect them (emotional manipulation)
3. Men that don't recognize women's innate value are inferior (dehumanization)

Furthermore, it relies on the "masculinity" ideology to compel you to "prove yourself" socially. Those who don't prove themselves are denied legitimacy and dehumanized.

The truth?

If you were born male... you are a "real man". By definition.

You can act and think whatever you want. That will not change the fact you are a "real man". Because that's literally what you are.

Thinking "wrong things", such as refusing to sacrifice yourself for an abstract group, does not automatically transform you into a monster. You are still a human male.

But that doesn't explain why the dominant interest group is entitled to your sacrifice for free. So they manufacture "masculinity" ideologies — what it means to be a "real man" — to manipulate you and your behaviour.

That's what this is all about.

And the fact that other men have internalized this harmful ideology and live by it? That is no reason to participate in this madness yourself.

Objection #6: "Men who don't risk themselves for women are contemptible!"

My Answer: Another emotional argument.

This ties back with the previous argument:

• All real men risk themselves for women (good men)
• Those who don't are not real men (dehumanization)
• Therefore I don't respect you (because you are a monster)

Verdict: Emotional manipulation designed to influence your behaviour and strike a fear of social death into you.

Most men will eventually cave in, even if reluctantly.

That's why this fallacious argument is being used. It works.

The problem is that the people who are trying to manipulate you into fighting for them... have already decided your life isn't worthy of preservation.

Appeasing them doesn't make any sense. They despise you and have already decided you don't deserve their time, resources, or protection. They don't necessarily want you dead, but they don't care if you get to live either.

Protecting them will only teach them that treating you with contempt can influence your behaviour and let them exploit you further.

A man who makes this argument is trying to elevate himself in the eyes of women at your expense. And a woman who makes this argument has just demonstrated to you why she DOES NOT deserve your protection and sacrifice.

Objection #7: "If you don't fight for your women, you are a coward!"

My Answer: Emotional argument. Denial of legitimacy.

If rational actors can be framed as "cowardly", they can hopefully lose their ability to influence others and their opinions.

People who are prodding you into sacrificing for their interests are not honest or protective of you. Likewise, they will not be honest with or protective of others like you.

If one rational actor is allowed to make his case about why the demanded sacrifice is pointless? Dissent would spread like wildfire.

Dominant interest groups cannot attack your logical arguments because they have no arguments of their own; they aren't really entitled to your sacrifice. That's why they HAVE TO rely on emotional arguments if they want any sacrifice at all.

This goes for both men as well as women using this argument. They are predatory individuals who don't want to pay market rates for your sacrifice, so they hope to dupe you into sacrificing for an ideological reward instead.

The irony?

They are the least qualified individuals to determine how cowardly or brave you are. Because if they were brave themselves, they would have volunteered to fight a long time ago.

And they didn't.

Objection 8: "Our culture keeps women out of harm's way, while men protect!"

My Answer: Argumentum ad populum.

Just because most people do something, that somehow means you are wrong for not doing it.

It also denies you legitimacy and strikes a fear of social death into you — like most of the previous assertions.

The number of people who do something has zero correlation to whether the action is good or bad.

It's a non-argument and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Verdict: No Moral Duty To Protect A Gender

Look what happened:

Self-interested women made emotional arguments and used your fear of social death against you in order to extract your sacrifice for free.

Self-deceived men who are sexually attracted to women and want to impress them with their "bravery" attacked you and your legitimacy in order to elevate themselves in the eyes of women at your expense.

That's what this whole argument is all about. It's what it's always been.

The "real men protect all women" is a story they tell themselves about their material interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

Causes: Why Are Men Told To Sacrifice For Women

The deepest irony is that resisting this coercion actually requires more bravery than caving in to the same people who are evidently trying to oppress you and extract sacrifice from you.

By refusing to be a hostage to people who despise you, you are showing more courage than those who cower before them and do their bidding in an attempt to score a few brownie points and maybe get some scraps.

The fact women themselves don't respect that? — Maybe they don't really care if you are brave or not? Maybe it's about something else?

For me, this isn't a difficult puzzle to solve. It's malicious individuals seeking to exploit you. All it ever was.

But in my day and age, nearly every man falls for this emotional manipulation and I cannot honestly tell you what causes it.

I have theories, and I think they are largely correct, but take them with a grain of salt:

Theory #1: Sexual attraction

Obviously, a man will only want to sacrifice for a woman if he's sexually attracted to her. No man will sacrifice for an old and/or ugly woman. That much we know for certain.

Likewise, women themselves don't volunteer en masse to sacrifice for other women because... same reason, really. Most women aren't sexually attracted to themselves, so they won't fight to protect each other.

I strongly believe this is a CORNERSTONE of this entire ideology. No sexual attraction = no men volunteering to fight for women.

And here's how I think fighting connects to the idea of protection:

Growing up, my entire society would tell me something akin to:

"Women like brave men who are nice to them and protect them."

Think about what this implies.

Your parents, school, teachers, authority figures, strangers... They all tell you something akin to "women like nice men" and "women like men who protect them".

What is the implication?

The narrative smuggles in the idea that female attraction is contingent on a man's character — bravery, servitude, and protectiveness.

And because everyone *knows* this to be true? It is presumed to be true, without question.

Here's what happens next:

Men who are sexually attracted to women will try to pursue them — almost as soon as they are developed enough to feel sexual desire.

Let's consider what follows — because there are only two possible outcomes.

a) Some men manage to get sex from women and they don't think much about it.

They become either:

1. Men who love all women (and will gladly fight for them);
2. Men who look down on women ("women are sluts", will not fight for them).

The first group will extend their personal, subjective experiences to all women:

"The women I personally know have all treated me very well. Therefore all women are good people."

The second group will draw a very different conclusion from the same experience:

"The women I personally know have all been easy and obsequious. Therefore all women are contemptible and disposable."

Arguably, men with easy access to sex and women are rarer than those who don't. Most men preaching ideologies are unsuccessful — so the two groups in (a) aren't that important for this analysis.

So let's consider the unsuccessful ones next.

b) Some men cannot get sex from women, no matter how hard they try.

But the desire doesn't just evaporate. It lingers.

Now go back to the narrative society tells men when they grow up:

"Women like brave men who are nice to them and protect them."

A romantically unsuccessful man might reason:

1. I like women, but they don't seem to like me.
2. What is it that women like in men?
3. Hmmm... Society told me that women like nice, strong, and brave men who protect them.
4. This is it!
5. If I can prove to the women around me that I am nice to all women and willing to protect them, they will reward me with sex!
6. The man internalizes the ideology, hoping it will get him what he wants.

This is how you get a majority of men who have never received anything real from women, yet are willing to sacrifice for their collective group at the drop of a hat. Because they've been trained to believe that it will get what they want (sex).

And because society (and women) benefit from the myth? They feed it.

In my society, men get no material rewards or recognition for sacrificing for women. However, they receive ideological rewards that make them feel emotional satisfaction.

For example:

• "You protected me! You are a real man!"
• "You are very strong! I appreciate having a strong man like you helping me with <something heavy>."
• "You were very brave standing up to that other evil man."
• "I appreciate your help with xyz. You are a real gentleman."
• "I wish more men were as brave as you and fought for us."

What do they have in common?

They make the man in question feel morally superior and more desirable than other men. Even if the praise is completely dishonest and used instrumentally.

But it feels real. And most men will do whatever it takes to be praised like that.

(Even if they suspect it is insincere, self-deception will stop them from questioning it)

Every drop of praise makes a man feel as though he is making progress. That if women are dropping praise left and right, it means they are becoming more and more sexually attracted to him.

For them, it feels like getting closer and closer to the tree whose apples they want to taste.

Theory #2: Social Conditioning

This one isn't particularly controversial, and I think the evidence is unanimous.

Men sacrificing for women isn't universal. It very much depends on the time period, society, norms, economic base, etc.

There are theories claiming that men wanting to protect women is an innate, biological impulse — but I think these theories are nonsensical.

Proof:

You look at oppressive societies and wonder to yourself, "Where is this impulse? Why are these societies oppressing women systematically?"

And remember: Most historical societies have been run by men (!)

The same men who allegedly have a natural impulse to care for and protect women... are also their biggest oppressors?

Verdict: Male biological urge to protect women is a lie. Reality contradicts it.

But think about what this "theory" achieves in society:

As a man, it gives you a plausible story to explain why you are biologically morally superior. It also gives you permission to feel self-righteous, even if you only protect women because you expect sexual reciprocation.

Self-deception in a nutshell.

Women cannot call you out for being self-interested, because you can hide behind "science" to prove that, actually, you are just biologically "good" and they are being unfair for not noticing it.

Other men cannot call you out either; instead, you can call THEM out for being "immoral", "evil", "broken", etc — because "science" claims that men are "supposed" to be like you, and they aren't.

The only possible result is a majority of men who gladly sacrifice for women, some men who sacrifice to avoid social death, and very few men who don't.

On the flip side, there are oppressive societies that allow and encourage their men to oppress women — basically the opposite of Western societies — and the pattern inverts there.

For me, this conclusively proves that: no. Men don't have a biological drive to protect women just because they are women.

Men are "natural protectors" only if they were first trained by society to internalize female safety as their personal concern.

If that doesn't happen? A man will not protect women. And if it benefits him, he might actually harm them.

If men wanting to be protectors was natural? Oppressive societies would not be possible, and nobody would need to regurgitate the "real men protect all women" narrative.

The same way you don't need to tell men to eat food, you wouldn't need to tell them to protect women.

But you do.

Because they won't if you don't.

Theory #3: Resource Protection

Ideologies aside, not every man protects women.

This is an established fact about humanity. No one will ever dispute that.

But it is also a fact that a man who "owns" a woman — literally and figuratively — WILL feel a natural desire to guard her from external threats.

That is to say: if a man believes he owns a woman and her sexuality, he will guard her with his life — the same way he would guard a dead carcass if he were starving.

(There are caveats, but that's the overall tendency)

Now think about an entire society:

Nobody can know everybody. A society made up of millions of people is a society of strangers.

Without ideologies, you cannot convince a man to sacrifice for all women — because why would he? The hypothetical "protector" instinct fires only for the women he personally knows AND believes he can access.

This resource-protection instinct is what extractive entities tap into to brainwash their men to sacrifice for their own interests:

"Your women need you! The enemy will kill them if you don't step up and be brave! All real men have already signed up. Why didn't you?"

This achieves numerous objectives, but basically, it implicitly promises that "the women" you are going to protect are actually "yours" — which for most men implicitly means "mine to do with as I please".

Thus selfish men can believe that they are actually selfless, and extractive entities can exploit them for their own elite interests.

The end result: Elites get cannon fodder, and the cannon fodder gets no women as a reward. Ideologies and short-term emotional satisfaction are the fodder's only reward.

In other words: Societies full of men claiming to "protect" all women? Is probably just a maladapted resource-protection instinct.

(It would also explain how oppressive societies can demean, mistreat, and even exterminate women, all the while believing themselves to be actually their "protectors")

Theory #4: Performance

This is not in question.

Many men will perform chivalry in public, in front of a social group they are wanting to be accepted by, while privately oppressing women behind closed doors.

Why?

It just so happens that, in some societies in the 21st century, "protect all women" is the dominant ideology with regards to how men should treat women, or how women deserve to be treated by men, etc.

A cynical manipulator can perform moral superiority in public, while acting like a thug and a fiend when no one can witness it.

Likewise, those who enforce these ideologies (elites) could be the cynical manipulators themselves — as they often are. They use the "we protect all girls and women" ideology as a shield to justify their own corrupt or oppressive actions, and claim that anyone challenging them is automatically evil (distracting from their own despicable actions in the process).

Consider another possibility:

A man who is always seen being brave and protective of women will appear safe. Even when he isn't.

You see, performing ideologies is cheap. Anyone can claim to be protective of women, believe in feminism, etc. It costs nothing.

And there are plenty of women who DO fall for this bullshit.

The most likely victims are young women with no life experience. Arguably the most desirable women there are.

(Because let's not pretend a cynical manipulator will try this nonsense with a less attractive, more experienced woman in her 30s and beyond)

There are other possibilities too. Because "he wants sex" isn't the only possible explanation.

A man performing because he believes it will get him a job?

A man hoping to become accepted into a group for material and social benefits?

A man scared of being "the other" and wanting to fit in?

A man trying to convince himself he is above nature and has "transcended"?

All of these are possible. And trust me when I say: men perform the "I protect all women" ideology for many more reasons than just the ones I have listed. And the reasons can range from innocent through pussy-hunger all the way to mysticism.

In fact, let me give you one last example — because it's the most ironic of all.

Some men will explain EVERYTHING I have explained so far, but will then position themselves as "one of the good ones" who is above cheap performance. He will "advise" women on how to avoid bad men, or chastise other men for not being "protective enough", because, again, he wants to be seen protecting women.

And if a woman trusts him enough to let him take her to a second location?

Well... Bad things happen.

And "no one could have predicted it" is the universal response.

The bottom line: Many men CLAIM they protect women, while being the ones women need PROTECTION FROM.

And you can NEVER tell them apart just by listening to them yap.

Theory #5: Elite Interests

The state of nature is inconducive with the premise of a civilized, peaceful society.

If your men just want to use women for sex... If they all aim to monopolize women and the exclusive access to their bodies...

...then you can never achieve a civilized, sovereign state. Because it will eat itself from within.

The average man or woman cares little for his culture, nation-state, long-term effects of their actions...

...but hereditary elites care. And they have every incentive to make their citizens care — or at least modify their behaviour so it doesn't run against their administrative goals.

How historical states controlled female behaviour is a topic for another day. But the way they controlled men's?

The ideology of "men protect, women reward" gives EVERY man something. And from a state-running perspective, this is the ideal solution. Rather than letting a few men monopolize every woman in your kingdom, you are giving every man a roughly equal share of "booty" that keeps him loyal, peaceful, and willing to defend the state — because his access to sex is congruent with his state's survival.

That's how it works in theory, at least. And what historically successful states did to a lesser or greater extent.

The narrative becomes:

"You are not fighting just for me and my royal interests. Remember: I gave you a woman for your bed; if you don't help me defend my kingdom, the enemy will come to steal all our women — including your woman."

Of course, this narrative is a bit coarse. "We can do better", thought the head of state.

The modified narrative became:

"You should fight for me, because my army fights to protect you and your families — you, your women, and your children."

The new narrative means PRECISELY the same thing, but it sounds more palatable and morally superior. So this is the narrative that sticks and gets used to mean, "You are fighting to preserve your access to regular sex".

(I have no idea just how old this narrative is. But its usefulness is undeniable)

Verdict: It just makes sense that elites would wave the pussy-carrot in front of the very people whose military services they needed to advance their interests.

Thus women became the carrot (reward), and men became the instruments of war (who will do anything for the carrot).

And palatable narratives ensured that this reward could be repackaged as "honour", "duty", "chivalry", and moral superiority.

Theory #6: All Theories #1-5 Are Correct

It is my honest opinion that, based on the world I live in, all five theories are true to a greater or lesser extent.

Some men want to "protect all women" for ideological reasons; some do it because they hope they will be rewarded with sex. Others do it because they want to conform to the dominant norm, but don't personally believe women deserve their protection.

Nearly all men "honestly believe" that all real men should protect women because they are self-deceived. Their beliefs are honest because they are convenient; they let them view themselves as righteous protectors, even if their real motivations are less-than-honourable.

The funniest thing is that many men will nod along and agree with me. "Yeah, you're right. Many men are exactly like that."

They will then explain (to themselves) why this DOES NOT apply to them:

"But this isn't me. You see, I protect women because I believe you should protect the weak. Those other guys over there? They are manipulative — you are correct. But not me. I am not like those other guys. I protect all women because I am a genuinely nice person."

All men will say that.

Even when their own behaviour contradicts them.

History: Ownership Disguised As Protection

Consider everything in this post so far.

Few men are going to honestly admit even to themselves:

"Actually, I probably wouldn't care about protecting women if I weren't sexually attracted to them first."

No sexual attraction = No women get protected

Young and pretty women? Yeah, they are romanticized and "protected" wherever they go.

Old or unattractive women? Well... They exist somewhere in the background, but almost nobody pays them much attention.

(I am yet to hear a "romantic tale" of a chivalrous knight going on dangerous adventures to save an old, unattractive damsel in distress. All of these stories feature young, attractive women — and this is not accidental)

When surplus became stored and protected for the first time (~10,000 years ago), the small physical differences between men and women started to compound.

Men quickly accumulated much more resources than women, and became the dominant sex.

The smaller differences between individual men started to compound too; eventually, a few men monopolized all the resources, leaving everyone else with little or nothing at all.

This is when the first noticeable hierarchies between humans started to emerge.

Consider what this meant for the have-nots:

• Men — Submit to the king, fight for him, obey his laws;
• Women — Submit to the king, become his concubine, obey his laws.

If you didn't submit, you were left with NOTHING.

Some submitted very quickly. Everyone needs resources to survive, and submission was easier than a violent dispute.

We don't have concrete evidence as to exactly what happened next. We know the men with resources routinely took multiple wives, and we also know this alone wasn't sustainable.

Next, it is plausible they came up with this narrative to justify their position:

"I am your Lord and Protector. The women I personally married? I am only protecting them. They are the most innocent, delicate, and pure women in the whole kingdom. That's why they deserve my personal protection and care."

Translation: the "Lord and Protector" found himself the youngest, most desirable women and convinced himself he is actually "protecting" them, because admitting he is just hoarding them would humiliate his wives, the men under him would resent that, and he himself couldn't view himself as more deserving of power than "those thirsty men under him".

Societies that didn't do that? Where a few men at the top monopolized ALL women and didn't reframe it as "protection"?

They all failed. And left little record.

But that still didn't solve the problem of violent men who wanted some "booty" for themselves.

You cannot have a stable, peaceful society in which a few rulers at the top monopolize all women, leaving their male soldiers with nothing.

No man is going to have any loyalty for a ruler like that.

It's not that the ruler has to be fair, necessarily; he only needs to give a few key men just enough women to keep them just loyal enough.

That's it.

And every ancient society that got this one right managed to survive for a little longer than the rest.

(They all failed, obviously. But the point stands: They outlasted those who did it worse)

The Core Reason: Every man wanted the most women FOR HIMSELF

This is the fundamental tension that has defined EVERY human society. Including modern societies — though to a lesser extent.

You can agree with it or disagree. But 50% of the world's population are men, and the other 50% are women. Everything about humanity is in some way connected to access to sex, because that's one of the things humans want the most.

Civilization? Nah, give me sex instead.

Fairness? What is it? Can I trade it for sex?

Food? Yeah, food is great. Maybe if I give her some of my own food, she will have sex with me.

Morality? Meh. Unless I can reframe it as a reason they should give me sex, I am not interested.

Protection? Why would I protect anyone? Actually, hold on a minute; I can offer that woman protection in exchange for regular sex...

Everything. Everything is downstream of sexual desire.

This is why young women "obey their husband" and "bear his children" — that is, have regular sex with him whenever he wants — and old women look after those children and care for them (so that the young woman is available for sex, because who wants to have sex with an older one?).

This is also why civilizations where a few rulers hoarded everything fell apart. Because they couldn't find "brave defenders" willing to fight for them.

Only those civilizations that gave men what they wanted (women, sex) could hope to exist for any real length of time.

You see, depending on which civilization a man found himself in, he would retrofit a different story to it:

1. Man gets women — "We are civilized men who protect women — not like those barbarians who just want to have sex with them";
2. Man gets no women — "This civilization is run by oppressive barbarians who need to be toppled. We must protect our women!"

Incidentally, this is why monogamy is the norm as of right now; it's a legal construct designed precisely to break up monopolies and structurally constrain men who would hoard women.

It was never designed to "protect women", or because their men were "civilized" and "above barbarity". It was simply a useful tool for redistributing "resources" to those the state deemed worthy of a reward.

Monogamy is an institution practiced differently, but the core idea is the same:

"Every man is allowed one woman. But he must obey the law and be loyal to his king in exchange."

Not all men are going to like that. Because they will want more than one.

At the same time, they will begrudgingly accept the little they were offered because it's better than nothing at all.

And this is how monogamy became the norm; it wasn't perfect, but it didn't have to be. It simply proved more effective than polygamy at keeping societies from eating each other.

Men ruled their kingdoms, male soldiers defended them, and women were used as a reward for its "honourable, brave" defenders.

Ownership: The root of anti-rape laws

This topic has a very long and complicated history. But this single word — "ownership" — basically explains the whole concept. From its inception, all the way to 2026.

You see, originally, families owned their daughters, and in adulthood, their brothers, fathers, or husbands.

This is key: they owned women. Legally.

Rape was considered "bad" because that woman wasn't yours.

Raping a random woman was essentially "trespass to goods". That's why societies looked down on it, and why they talked of "protecting women" from damage.

Because they didn't want "their" goods damaged.

Raping your own woman? One that your king "gave" to you? That's all well and good. She is yours.

Just make sure not to rape someone else's woman. Because your king gave it to someone else. And he will be upset if you break his laws.

In fact, here's an interesting thing: every society had certain kinds of women that were not considered property.

This was not good news for the women. It was worse.

A prostitute? A young girl who escaped her abusive father? A witch?

These women were not property. They were essentially "outlaws" — as in, social pariahs that nobody cared about.

A woman could only be property, or she could be an outcast. No in-betweens.

If you raped a woman that "belonged" to someone else? That was a problem.

If you raped an "outlaw" woman? Literally no one cared.

Basically, women were structurally required to be property or risk everything. Few women took the second option.

Modern rape laws

21st century isn't any more enlightened. The fundamental premise is the same.

Rape is considered bad, because a man who rapes a woman takes what's not "his".

You see, a modern woman's "owner" is not an individual man or guardian. The state claims ownership.

Modern women are workhorses, expected to sustain the state the same way men do. This is why states extend their protection to all women, and no longer treat them as "rewards" to be given to men.

The core reason: states can use women as more than just pussy-carrots for men. In the 21st century, women can be used to create economic value for the states and their elites.

This is new; historically, men were the economic and military backbone of nearly every state. Nowadays, women can do the same thing; they can defend the states militarily (modern technology, physical strength less important), and they can "contribute" to the economy (jobs require less physical strength, specialist positions, service industry).

To incentivize women to defend the state, and to create value for its elites, women had to be granted certain concessions — such as legal protections, rights, and the recognition they are more than just "property".

But this was NOT an act of enlightenment, goodwill, or a sudden realization that humans shouldn't be treated as beasts to be exploited for their labour.

That fundamental idea? That humans exist only to serve their states and contribute to its rulers ambitions?

That idea still holds. All over the world.

And it's no different for women. It's just that now women can demand more from their states. That's the only reason.

Barring modern technology, modern states would have no reason to grant women any protections whatsoever. They would revert back to the entities that used women as bargaining chips to incentivize men to submit and work for the state instead.

(But that is its own topic that I might explore at length another time)

Conclusion

In the Palaeolithic, it's likely that women either belonged to a tribe that functioned like a family, or they were taken by force by men who could physically overpower them.

Post-agriculture and post-warehouse, male monopolies on women became the norm. Those with resources could trade it for sexual access, loyal soldiers, and frame it as "I just want to protect these innocent, weak women — because I am morally superior!"

Eventually, monogamy proved more effective at state management: give every man something, and he will help preserve your state. Those that didn't do it were outcompeted by those that did.

In modern times, women are used as workhorses by the state. Rather than surrendering ownership over women to individual men, states claim ownership instead. The burden of "protection" shifted from individual men to the state.

But the fundamental premise is the same: women are, and always have been, property. Modern ideologies pretend this isn't true, but look at what they actually do, and not just what they claim they do.

The "protect all women" ideology? Is just a cover-up story to distract from that fact. Somebody or other always claims ownership over women — whether it's individual men, their families, or even entire states.

Motivations vary; families want bargaining chips. Men want access to sex. States want economic labour, and increasingly, military protection.

But they all want to control women. None of them protects women out of the goodness of their hearts. It's a useful myth. Nothing more.

Synthesis: Uncomfortable Conclusion

In the state of nature, there is no "real men protect all women" ideologies. Humans do whatever they want, take whatever they can, and subjugate whomever they are strong enough to subjugate.

Institutions such as states have been created in order to prevent anarchy and the war of all against all — such as men violently competing with each other over access to women. Because when left to their own devices, unconstrained by modern ideologies, nearly ALL MEN default to the state of nature where they act opportunistically with women.

And where they don't even ask nicely.

Redirecting this violent resource-acquisition-slash-protection instinct toward "those other guys" from the out-group? That's how you contain the masses of thirsty men and give them permission to view themselves as morally superior, righteous protectors (that they are not).

EVERYTHING THAT MEN DO WITH REGARDS TO "PROTECTING" WOMEN IS SELF-INTERESTED.

Almost no man will arrive at "chivalry", feminism, or the "I-protect-all-women" ideology philosophically. These ideas are usually just retrofitted stories that reframe men's sexual desire as something "higher" and unconnected with sex.

Self-deception fills the blanks, social approval reinforces their delusions, and the end result is men who honestly believe themselves to be protectors...

...while actively harming women for their own selfish gains.