The Dispposable Male

Straw man argument. I share the value of protecting children. Read my posts more carefully.

And yes, my wife knows that if she were not pregnant, she shouldn't expect me to risk myself to protect her. That wouldn't be very fair, would it? In fact splitting up would increase the likelihood of at least one of us surviving to care for the children. My son comes with me because I'm stronger, faster, think more clearly in an emergency, and he listens to me better. Then we meet up at a previously agreed upon spot. Don't you discuss disaster planning with your family?

Why do you ask? Do you think that she would not like it if I expressed a lack of willingness to sacrifice myself for her?

In each of these threads my family life has been questioned. I can tell you right now you two, you're barking up the wrong tree and it's just gonna embarress you. I am a really good parent, and my marriage is very happy and healthy. You're akin to the misogynists accusing feminists of being frigid man haters who could never attract a mate.

There very well may have been. But it's not in their gender role, so the likelihood is low.

Your opinion does not surprise me. I'm used to being confronted with the gender role that men's problems are trivial and talking about them = playing victim. In this case (and this is common too) you accompanied it with an acknowledgement of a minor example while ignoring the major institutional inequalities that are present (the draft and divorce courts).

I would tell you that your comments are cliche and pointless. But they're a good example of the enforcement of the male gender role stoicism, which is part of male disposability. So they're actually very useful as a teachable moment for the rest of us.

 

i didn't mention anything about you protecting your wife over yourself, i was asking if your wife is aware that you feel a child's life is no more important than your own.

as for your examples of the draft and divorce courts... there has been no draft in your country since women have been allowed to take part in combat roles, so it isn't really a valid example, in my opinion. as for divorce courts - yes, there are definitely some cases where the child ends up with the mother when they would be better off with the father, i'm not questioning that.

i guess my point is that it seems to me as if you're trying to look like a victim when you don't seem to have been victimized, and at the same time you're trying to equate the relatively few inequalities that have a negative effect on men with the extremely large amount of inequality within our society that has a negative effect on women. it's not your argument that bothers me, but the way you go about arguing it, i suppose.

 

If you "google" Disposable Male, there is some talk that comes up as a discussion of "Male Victimhood".

 

You don't like the way I'm arguing? Hey, at least I didn't call you a dick. Others won't understand that one, but you'll get it.

What you don't like is that I'm taking men's problems seriously. And I've got to wonder what you're doing in a Men's Issues forum if you don't.

It's you who's trying to claim victim status for women, and use that as an excuse for trivializing men's problems. So don't act like I'm the one playing the victim card.

There's no current draft, but there's a draft registration system. You think maybe the time to address this issue is after another draft starts? How about them Vietnam vets dying homeless in the streets. When is it time to address that?

People try to play the victim game, trying to decide which gender has it worse. I refuse to join the debate on those terms. Both genders have it bad. Anyone who's only interested in addressing the problems of one gender is not interested in true equality.

 

aaaahhh! too many pages to read at the moment, but heres my $0.02

i think that this originates in biology. sperm are "cheap" to produce, while the limited number of eggs available, and the physical strain of carrying children is "expensive"
(i just watched a video that mentioned this, but for the life of me i cant remember which one it was... will link it if i figure it out)

so, since males compete for mating rights, they are not as scarce a resource. sure a female might make an effort to attract a desirable baby-maker, but to pass on their genetic material a male HAS to impress a female.


the social conditioning aspect is there as well, but as a man is compelled to protect (or flee, leaving wife and child to fend for themselves, as was also the case in the aurora shooting) a woman is compelled to protect their, and often others' children (except when they dont. ) children will try to save the things they love, toys, pets, and even in some situations their parents. it helps to know what to do, thats why teaching kids the proper use of 911 is so important, and what can be done in the meantime if you have a condition (i think it was a 4 year old who knew to give her mother icing, i think it was a diabetic seizure, saved her life ) generally the things we are 'supposed' to be in charge of.

anyway, thats what i think.

 

If you google pointless posts I wouldn't be surprised if #63 came up.

 

I noticed that the other day Didn't like to bring it up

 

Not sure what you're saying?

 

from what i remember, i gave you a neg rep and said something along the lines of 'don't act like a dick', because you were acting like a dick. you then got upset because i used a 'gendered slur'.

would you disagree with me when i say that the average woman in north america has to deal with more systemic discrimination than the average man?

i can't really comment on this, as it isn't really an issue in canada. we haven't had a draft since WWII (and at that, only towards the very end of the war - barely anyone who was drafted saw combat).

 

I agree. But I'd like to add that the biological imperative is outdated, what with the billions of people on the planet. Therefor the social conditioning aspect should be dismantled, as it is unfair and unuseful. Ment shouldn't be considered disposable any more, just like women shouldn't be considered baby factories.

 

I already told you, I refuse to join a debate on those terms. I've seen it happen before. Both sides start bringing up example after example. Each example is picked to death. There's no real basis for comparing which is worse, because it's apples to oranges. What is worse, being raped in prison or out of prison? Being drafted or being denied abortion? Being denied equal pay or being denied access to your children?

It's a pointless debate, in which neither side can ever win. The only point is to claim greater victim status for one side over the other, and what is the point of that? To provide an excuse for writing off the problems of the other side. The fact is, both genders face discrimination in ways that are very hard to compare. All of these issues are important, and I wouldn't let addressing women's issues hold you back from addressing men's issues.

Doesn't Canada also have universal healthcare with available abortions? I don't suppose that you'd go into a women's issues forum and tell them that someone in an abortion restrictive state in the US is trying to claim victim status by talking about abortion rights, would you?

 

It is entirely relevant to bring up the fact that Male Victimhood is being discussed at various other sites, under the title of Disposable Male.

Coincidence, or do you do alot of reading on this subject, David?

 

just wondering if you agree or disagree, i don't need any examples.

no, because she is actually being victimized. you don't seem to have any examples where you were victimized, other than not have a change table in a public bathroom.



but, it doesn't matter, because we're clearly not going to agree on anything or be able to have a constructive discussion, so there is no point in continuing.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGK2KprU-To"]The Science of the Friend Zone - YouTube

this is the one i was talking about.

biological part cant be ignored because we have grown out of our population britches. the biological aspect, the hormones and brain chemicals involved are not changed by not being acted on. so, even if women do not consciously judge what they want in a mate, the primitive brain still tells men to provide and protect. i just dont think it can be discounted because it doesnt play out on an obvious level.

i do agree that it is unfair, certainly unnecessary, but you cant force the underlying biology to change, if that is where its root is. the change will have to come slowly, over generations. i think it is happening in some ways. sure, women cant be drafted, but they can now be recognized for their combat experience. there arent a lot of women in the heavy-lifting, protecting types of jobs, but there are some.
i do not think men are disposable. i think most people would agree. so how do you dismantle what is not known? we protect what we love. frankly, i would probably die struggling with my hubby over who would take the bullet.

 

Disagree. I already said, apples to oranges. Impossible to compare.

So you're of the opinion that unless one is actually being denied an abortion, one has no place complaining about other people being denied abortions? Or does that only apply if you're talking about problems that impact men?

None of my statements have been about me personally. I've only responded to personal questions about how gender roles have impacted me personally when they've been asked. I'm talking about the system, man.

Hey man, that's on you. I'm ready to be proven wrong as soon as you can come up with an argument that does so. Complaining that I'm taking men's problems seriously isn't doing it. Claiming that I'm claiming victim status isn't doing it. Sulking off in a huff because I didn't crumple beneath your scorn sure as hell isn't doing it.

 

I'm sure that if you look up logical fallacies on wikipedia, you can find the three that apply to your argument on your own and I won't have to bother explaining it.

Fallacy of Accicent or sweeping generalization
Straw man
Irrelevant conclusion

I'm sure that there are more but I won't take the time to think about this dreck any further.

 

Social change takes place much, much faster than evolution. If we were content to live by the values that our genes encourage, we'd be in a really bad way.

No, we can construct our society to be as we think they ought to be. There may be a biological drive towards the disposable male, but there's no reason that we have to encourage it socially.

 

If you honestly believe that, all other factors aside, females are not systemically mistreated more often than males in North American society, there is no point in discussing the topic with you. Have a good life, and good luck fighting for the disenfranchised.

 

It was no argument. It was a direct question. What's wrong? Can't you answer a simple and direct question without trying to point fingers at someone else?

 

Wait, what was the question again?