Protection Transaction

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:15:15 +0000

A particular strain of male grievance emerges from men who, having failed to secure romantic partnerships, rationalize their rejection by invoking a narrative of cultural decline. They explain to women that during such periods, men exist to protect them from the violent men they rightly fear. The central contradiction, however, is that the men making this argument presume they should be the designated protectors, despite the fact that the women in question have never been sexually or romantically interested in them. These men leverage the very real dangers of societal instability not as a call for universal civic duty, but as a tool for coercion. They reframe the basic act of ensuring communal safety—something a good citizen would do without expectation of reward—into a transactional arrangement. In their view, being a "good fellow citizen" to women is contingent upon receiving sexual access in return for protection.

This entire dynamic could theoretically be circumvented if women collectively exercised direct agency over their own security. For instance, if 15 million women each contributed $100 monthly, they would amass $1.5 billion to fund the creation of safer communities and cities. This capital would allow them to hire and partner with men they genuinely like and trust to design, build, and protect these spaces—men chosen for their character and competence, not out of a sense of coerced obligation. The fact that such a collective action has not yet been mobilized speaks less to its financial feasibility and more to the profound societal and logistical challenges of organizing on that scale, as well as the entrenched norms that still condition how safety, gender, and obligation are perceived.