The Dispposable Male

so what if a female political leader started a war?

I guess it would have to not be her fault, because if women were leaders, there would be no war

 

if I had to give my life to save my wife or kids I would, but I would never want them to do the same for me.

I could not live with survivor guilt if one of them died so I could live.

 

Please tell me about the wars started by women.

My ex boyfriend was in the military. He once told me he didn't believe women should fight in combat because the men around them would feel compelled to save them rather than fight the enemy. Men have been the protectors of the family since the dawn of time because physically and in general men are stronger than women.a few years of "equality " isn't going to undo thousands of years of male instinct.

 

Try reading "Warrior Queens" by Antonia Fraser. That's more about ancient times, but it does give an indication that women in power have always been involved in wars like their male counterparts. For modernity see Margaret Thatcher regarding the Falkland Islands, Indira Gandhi during the Sino-Indian War, etc. (Thatcher brazenly used the Falkland war to push through major anti-union/anti-labor legislation with some pretty major propaganda campaigns and jingoism.) I suppose we could debate the merits of the Falklands war, the Sino-Indian war, but I tend to think that would derail the discussion, and could devolve the thread into talking the blame game about every damned war ever fought.

Just to be clear tho, obviously I'm not saying women have been involved in just as many wars. That'd be absurd because they haven't, historically, been in power nearly as often. But during those times they were in power... well, we can certainly see the similarities and dispense with the "Men start wars" slogan.

 

All logic is individual in nature. Societal logic is a misnomer. That an individual should sacrifice himself for society, is illogical to the individual. I can't really make the claim that it is logical to society because society is a ghost. There is only a collection of individuals.

That's still disposability. That an individual man should even concern himself with whether the population is growing or not!

Here's my two cents. There's no free lunch. Only trade offs. Feminism made a mess of history, and people bought into it hook, line, and sinker. It completely falsified history.

Patriarchy was never pure oppression, it was a division of labor. Men never sacrificed themselves willy nilly. They have always gotten benefits from being the protectors of women, as well they should have.

Women, likewise, got immense benefits from patriarchy. Those have already been mentioned in this thread. So much so, that women nowadays are the main proponents of gender roles, and are scared shitless to see them go.

-----------
Enter post-feminist society. And not only do we have a double standard, we have a society in which women are taught that eating the cake and having it too is their god-given right.

1) feminism has never abandoned chivalry, it simply transferred the responsibility from husbands and family over to the state. The anonimity of their benefactors makes it so that they don't even have to honor them as they did in the past.

2) feminism arrogates to itself, not only special protection from men ('society' is code word for men, nowadays), but also to take away all the privileges that man have historically had for being protectors.

In the end, it looks like this. Boy picks up the tab, puts his dick in a jar, and puts girl on a pedestal only to turn around and be called a pig, sex menace, and oppressor.

-------------

Biological differences are real, but they aren't static. Evolution is called evolution for a reason.

-------------

I don't like to tell people what to do. If the guys in the Batman movie saw fit to die for their girlfriends, more power to them. I can recall having had a proud, protector stance in my younger days. I paid on dates a while back, I opened doors, pulled chairs, etc.

That was out the window when I realized that I was constantly treated like shit by women. That I got nothing in return for my chivalry. Not even respect for my masculinity.

Therefore, I do not put myself in the role of gentleman, anymore.

-------------
I'm not an egalitarianism freak. But, if men and women are indeed different, and I have a role to play, I want women to play theirs as well. Make me feel like the man!

 

A note about men starting wars: Wars have been beneficial to women. Wars have always been part and parcel of the business of survival. Absolutely the same with crime. There isn't a single drug dealer out there who isn't beating them off with a stick.

Adopting a Christian/Platonic/liberal view of things, does not eradicate the fact. Saying that men owe something to women because they started wars is ignoring the fact that men started wars because women couldn't have done it themselves.

It's not that women didn't want to start wars, it's that they couldn't. Wars have always been fought with the full support of women, whether or not they were in the front lines.

The arguments that men 'start' wars is facile. Women were not innocent bystanders. They've voted for war presidents, they've advised politicians, they've fed troops, they've taken on civilian jobs in war efforts, they've cheered the victorious upon their return, and nursed the maimed and defeated back to health, they've taken care of their children dutifully in their absence, they've exchanged letters across the ocean with those in war zones, they've ironed their uniforms.

And, most important of all, women have always rewarded physically aggressive men (over conflict-avoiding men) with consensual sex.

 

Jonathan Blunk seems to have pushed his girlfriend to the floor so that she was out of the way, rather than throwing himself on top of her/shielding her with his body. Is his girlfriend going to say a 'veteran' is a coward who didn't die a hero? I doubt it.

We were not there so it is unfair to suggest the females cowered underneath their partners body for protection.

If all the men threw themselves on top of a female (even if it wasn't their partner) - I could see your point. But this sounds like the men who supposedly did actually didn't, and those that did were just brave and selfless.

This is what a male or female would do if their were young children present. There are many cases of females protecting their children (male and female), with little regard for their own safety.

 

Of course I don't mean bad things are men's fault, or that some women don't start wars. I was hypothesizing according to the suggestion of the thread.

 

Indeed. Vicky Soto, the hero teacher who tried to protect her students at Sandy Hook Elementary School is a perfect example of this.

 

PREGNANT Zurana Horton threw herself over a group of children before being shot.

 

Children's lives are vallued more highly than adults'. While it's hard to come up with a logical rationalization for this value, I share it and don't have any desire to challenge it.

However, this does not negate the fact that women's lives are vallued more highly than men's.

 

Do you understand the concept of an internalized gender role? This is sociology 101. Literally.

 

Well, I learn something new every day. I'll take that off of my list of examples. Do you have a link where I might read up on this?

 

Just to be clear, are you denying the premise of the thread?

 

What? You're not making any sense.

 

What would you do if a crazed gunman was aiming his gun in your wifes direction and you were standing next to her?
It's certainly dependent on the male.





Although never part of international maritime law, the phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic, where, as a consequence of this practice, 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men. Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats. It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because so few men were saved on the Titanic, the men who did survive were initially branded as cowards, including White Star official, J. Bruce Ismay.
There is no legal basis for the protocol of women and children first — according to International Maritime Organization regulations, ships have 30 minutes to load all passengers into lifeboats and maneuver the boats away.

History has furthermore shown that application of the protocol has been the exception rather than the rule. An Uppsala University study published in April 2012, found that historical survival rates have been in favour of adult males rather than women or children. The paper analysed 18 maritime disasters covering a period of one and a half centuries, from 1852 to 2011. The same study found that crew members have a relative survival advantage over passengers. The particular case of RMS Titanic is therefore not representative of maritime conduct in general.


Concerns

Some writers have argued that the entire concept of putting women first in an emergency may be merely a means of promoting an idea of essential gender differences which may then be used to justify other inequalities that disfavour women. According to Lucy Delap of Cambridge University, the British ruling class used the myth of male chivalry at sea to justify denying women the right to vote, as there was no reason for women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of their own interests. Some social scientists consider this to be a flawed ideological point of view, which ridicules sacrifices of men in an attempt to falsify historical facts and portray the privileged status of women as inequality. Contemporary masculist interpretation, for example, holds the Birkenhead drill to be an epitome of centuries old social and cultural degradation of men, where their lives were and still are considered to be less valuable than that of women. According to the masculist theory, the practice in question reveals the hidden and widespread discrimination against men. These theorists offer a meta-interpretation of feminist explanations as strategies to mask an underlying misandry in western societies, allowing men to be considered sub-human, rather than equally worthy members of the society. Furthermore, the drill in question demands of men to confirm themselves as expendable through the act of self-sacrifice. To a proponent of masculist theory, "the doctrine supports the idea of male disposability. Society encourages males to commit suicide to save a woman’s life, lest he be branded a coward."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first

Women first rule 'ignored in ship disasters' - study

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17693480

 

So what I'm seeing here is not too many men are feeling this sense of male victimhood.

 

18 shipwrecks? That's hardly conclusive. I'll put this in the "inconclusive" category, and take it off of my list of examples.

 

This is insane. Yes, I've removed the word "women", because that is a separate issue. But you don't understand why children should come before grown men? Really?

 

Seriously!? What the fuck is wrong with you people? Isn't it really blatantly obvious?