The Dispposable Male

this 'repopulation' argument would be applicable in our example situations if the world didn't already have 7 billion people living on it.

and 'you can repopulate the planet with 6 men'? what if those 6 men are infertile? are the ships, large buildings gonna start requiring proof of fertility from anyone that comes onboard/inside, just so if an emergency happens we would know exactly who to save? it doesn't work that way. in an emergency everyone looks after their own chance of survival. survival instincts kick in in everyone. some are less adept at saving themselves, others more. this is evolutionary basics. we do have SAR, and they are trained to unconditionally save as many people as possible, but beyond that, it's each man for himself.

and if we ever encounter a natural disaster that kills off everyone except a combination of 6 individuals from one gender and an unspecified number from the other (i see a plot for another hollywood sci-fi blockbuster coming on) that would mean it's something destructive to the whole planet. which would mean those people have a lot more to worry about than reproduction. that would probably mean the death of the whole planet. and that is a special case, requiring its special measures which do not correlate with what we're talking about on this thread. so it's not analogous.

 

From your mouth to God's ear!

Yes, things happen so quickly, adrenalin kicks in, and it's all instinct from there I believe; unless it was a long drawn out hostage situation in which you'd have time to do a little fact gathering and strategic planning.

 

That's ABC news, not some sort of reality show. But I do understand and accept your skepticism. I only wish that people would show as much skepticism for the things that they already believe, as towards the things that they don't.

So what further evidence could persuade you? That's a fair question. If you consider the evidence that I've brought to the table to be inconclusive, than I ask, what evidence could possibly persuade you? And that is not a rhetorical question.

I suggest that your lack of acceptance springs more from a desire not to accept, than from any failure on my part to make my case.

 

Yes, this has already been gone over. Mother's Love made essentially the same point in post #65, and I responded in post #70.

This is a good explanation for why things came to be as they are, but a piss poor justification for maintaining the current gender role. Yes, there was a past, and I suppose that there may be a future, when every uterus was valuable. But that is not our present.

That past may explain a certain hard wiring. But it does not justify the systemic discrimination or the socializing involved in the present. We don't have the power to change human nature. But we can change society. Women shouldn't be forced to be baby factories. And men shouldn't be forced to protect and provide for them. There's just no need for that any more.

 

Lol, ABC News! They, and other mainstream media, aren't reliable sources for unbiased opinion. What a joke.

Persuasion? I'll pass, David.

Exactly. You can't shove hard enough to make me swallow.

 

If there is no conceivable evidence that could persuade you, that puts you well over the line from skeptical to closed minded. No further point in discussion.

I wish that people who told me that they weren't going to waste our time talking to me anymore would actually stop talking to me afterwards.

 

Lol, how you attempt to twist things.

Unbiased evidence I welcome with my very open mind.

I have an open mind and open heart; open arms and open eyes. I live a full and happy life in which I am not crippled by tunnel vision.

 

Ok-bit off-line,but on subject;

If that cinema had been full of mums and children,at a Saturday matinee,the mums would have thrown themselves over their kids.
Natural urge to protect does NOT mean expendable.
It means "I'm shitting housebricks and terrified,but I MUST protect my children".

So although biology may evolve fairly quickly,ingrained instinctive behaviour trails along behind it. Sometimes,that's a good thing.

 

I think we've all missed the obvious answer here.

Women (generally) want men that are going to protect them and their offspring. Not push them in front of the charging bear and run away.

Men want women.

Therefore we get a culture where men are protective.

You don't have to buy into these beliefs and can feel free to live a long life by yourself.

 

Well to be honest Sitka I'm not overly fussed at being 'disposable'.
I didn't intend staying forever anyway.

 

I don't think you read the thread. I don't even think you read the OP very carefully. I find it insulting that you tell us that "we've all missed the obvious" when in fact we've already discussed it.

At any rate, you're muddling culture with biological imperative. The biology may explain the origins of the culture. But it can't be used to justify the culture in this modern world. No more than you can justify men using women as baby factories on those grounds.

So I have to wonder, the dynamic that you describe, in which men compete to make themselves useful to women or have the choice to end up alone. Is this the best that you think our culture can do? Don't you think that we could arrive at a more equitable arrangement that respects the inherent worth of every human being?

Then there's the reason that I don't think you read even the OP very thoroughly. You describe this as an entirely voluntary choice for each individual, but it's just not so. I gave one great example in the OP, which is the draft. Half of the homeless population is made up of Vietnam veterans to this day. You can't get much more disposable than forcing someone into a war zone and then abandoning them. I can give you plenty more examples if you need them. Just ask. Do you really think that there is no systemic discrimination taking place?

 

Answer to question in bold : Right!

You're not sure what I want at the beginning of the paragraph. And then at the end of the paragraph you're telling me what I want. Not sure what to do with that.

Well yes, you are stuck on this one scenario. You're missing the forest for the trees, and maybe it would help if you'd step back, look at some of the other posts and other examples, and think about what it is that I'm saying. You're using a whole lot of loaded language that is not coming from me.

Does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak? Debatable, but most would agree yes. In this particular situation that you describe, no. It makes more sense for me to ensure that at least one of us survives to take care of our child, by getting the hell out of there. And in the situation that I described, in which my son is present, it makes the most sense to concentrate on getting him out of there and let my wife worry about herself.

One thing that you do seem to understand is the fundamental misogyny involved in the helpless damsel/white knight dichotomy, because it assumes that women are helpless. You seem to struggle with the idea that there is a corresponding misandry at work here too, in that men are sacrificed.

The fact is that the men died. They weren't simply disposable, they were disposed of. When I point out that they considered themselves disposable, you equate that with me saying that they died in vain. It's interesting that that is the part that makes you sad.

The thing is, I don't value their lives any less than I value the lives of the people they saved. So their sacrifice was no great action. They each traded one life for another. Not entirely in vain, but no net benefit either. What it does point out is that in their internal calculus, that trade was a net benefit. Those individuals did value their lives less than those that they protected, in that moment. And those who accepted that sacrifice, they made the same calculus in their own favor. It's a powerful point that I don't think has really sunk in for you yet.

Let's look beyond the trees now. Look at the overall pattern. About 90% of workplace deaths are males. Men are registered for the draft, and those broken veterans are left homeless on the streets. The male suicide rate is 8 times that of the female suicide rate. Men visit doctors less often than women do. Men die seven years younger than women do.

 

oh, look who came back...

 

Can't have it both ways, sorry.

 

I generally leave people who discuss like that to themselves :2thumbsup: But I have to admit, when it is about an issue I feel I have a strong opinion about it is sometimes easier said then done

 

Very interesting thread! I didn’t get to read more than the first 3 pages. I’m at work and I should be working, but I still wanted to comment because this is something that I’ve often wondered about myself. I’m bothered by double standards and while most of my female friends consider themselves to be empowered females, but they still bitch about going a date with a guy who didn’t pay for their dinner. It makes me laugh. I realize the topic at hand is somewhat different, but I think they’re closely connected. There certainly is a double standard and women want to scream they’re equal, but they still demand to be protected by men. To quote one of my friends “I need guys who are big, that other guys see him and they’re scared to even look at me. I’ll only date guys who can beat the shit out of others”. I’ve heard this several times in my life. On the other hand I’m intimated by big, strong, muscular guys because I think “what if this guy goes crazy one day and decides to beat the shit out of me?” lol

It makes sense to put children’s lives before your own because they’re younger, have a future ahead of them and in situations of danger more often than not are completely helpless. Men and women are supposed to be able to take care of themselves. It also makes perfect sense for a person to try and save or protect the life of the people they love, but this is something that is definitely seen more from men. Maybe that is simply the way that is portrayed and not factual, but I doubt that. I’ve seen displays of it in a lesser degree in everyday life, not in life threatening situations, but still men jumping in the defense of women… from other men.

I think there’s definitely a biological basis for this that’s ingrained in us. Like bird mentioned more women than men are needed to preserve the population. A man can go and impregnate many women in a month, while a woman can only do this once. Considering how overpopulated we’re, this kind of behavior does not make sense anymore. It’s part of our program and it’s easier for us to continue with it, than to deprogram ourselves. Plenty of people have evolved from this way of thinking, but the majority is still stuck in the old ways.

 

this article reminds me of this thread:
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-went-to-a-mens-rights-lecture-in-toronto

 

Holy shit lady! Read my post again. I answered your question point blank.

"Does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak? Debatable, but most would agree yes. In this particular situation that you describe, no. It makes more sense for me to ensure that at least one of us survives to take care of our child, by getting the hell out of there."

I dunno what's to be done with you. Accusing me of not reading your posts while you fail to read mine.

But I'm the one being pompous and condescending? I'm the one who's taking this conversation around in circles? Look in the mirror.

 

I agree with everything that you've said. I hope that you read the rest of the thread and give us your opinions.

I think that you're right. Male disposability is intimately related to the dating scene. As so many people have already pointed out in this thread, the roots of this behavior lie in our biological reproductive imperatives. What do you think a more equitable society might look like in this regard?

 

It's too bad that it's when I'm at work that I feel like reading threads the most!

I'm not sure, that's something I have to think about. While gender roles displease me, I do think men and women are *somewhat* different. The problem is that I think very little has to do with physiological reasons and a lot of it is our own fabrication.

A common example is the mom/dad shaming their son for crying by saying "what are you a little girl?". I've more often than not heard this from parents of boys when they cry. It always makes me terribly uncomfortable to witness. Boys do get the rough end of the stick when it comes to discovering their own identity. A girl playing with trucks, worms, guns, basketball or whatever is fine. A boy that wants to dance in a tutu, likes sparkly things, dolls. Not ok or immediately labeled as gay. I'm not sure why this is the way it is, if it's a celebration of male culture in which a woman can be more like a man, but a man just has to be a man. Whatever that's supposed to mean. Maybe it's something completely different.

I always imagine that a more equal society would contain more people minding their own business and less expectations of what a woman or man should be like. And less women wanting to be taken care of and less men feeling the need to take care or protect women. I think it's great to care and protect what you love, but they're two different things. It'd be interesting to see more people explore freely the feminine and masculine. Things have "warped" a little, but I don't think we'll see a full blown change in our lifetime.