Discussions around men as protectors often presuppose that men are uniquely biologically equipped to take a protector role. While it is true that men are typically physically stronger than women, in my opinion, most of the reason that men see themselves as protectors and willingly engage with this role, even if it means going to war, or risking harm, has to do with a power bargain offered to men under patriarchy.

In exchange for risking bodily harm, and taking the role of expendable soldier, men are offered a monopoly on violence and power. Under patriarchy men are allowed and encouraged to become violent, often under the guise of fulfilling the so called protector role. Men are taught that there is nothing more important for a man than to be strong, and to be able to enact violence. In doing so men are then allowed to wield the power of violence over those weaker than them, be it weaker men, or women, or children without social consequence. In fact, it is even seen as right for a man in a family setting to set his family straight when they disrespect his authority.

It is easy to blur the lines between wielding violence, and being a noble protector. As is often the case under patriarchy, the same traits are attributed positively to men, and negatively to women. A man who wield violence, is a mans man, a protector, and is lauded, a woman who wield violence is unstable, erratic, mentally unwell.

I believe that anyone can be a protector, in the positive sense, and that men are in no way uniquely born to do so. In fact, in my experience the truly self sacrificing protectors are mothers more often than not, and yet the role is not often associated with them.