Male disposability

From Kings Wiki, masculinity and nationalism
Jump to: navigation, search
Fish needs bike.jpg

Male disposability is an idea that often comes up in discussions of evolutionary psychology. It argues that, much like a farmer only needs one bull for every 50 cows he wants to impregnate, society won't suffer much if large numbers of men are lost to prison, mental hospitals, or early deaths, because women rather than men are the reproductive bottleneck. This is used as a justification for policies that give priority to looking after the safety and happiness of women rather than men.

Pelle Billing notes, "Throughout history, men have filled the roles and performed the tasks that demanded that you risk your life. The only risk that couldn't be removed from women was that of child-bearing, but apart from that women have more or less always been kept out of harms way. . . . . In every country where people can be drafted or be forced to do military service, it is only the men who are forced to fight for their country. And even when people sign up voluntarily, it is mostly men who do it (e.g. US forces in Iraq). As a (straight) man you are expected to protect your girlfriend/spouse/wife at all times. Dangerous jobs are predominantly done by men: police officer, fire fighter, construction worker, etc. Outdoor jobs are predominantly done by men: lumberjack, oil platform worker, garbage collector, etc. Men still perform most of the jobs where you are expected to work insane hours, and only see your family at weekends (at best)."[1]

In TV and movie depictions, "women find it difficult to lose audience sympathy by being useless, worse than useless, or selfish cowards - as long as they don't get other people with the audience's sympathy killed, that is."[2]

According to Roosh, "Since no tribe has had a conscious goal of exponential growth, in some cases it’s possible to adopt the argument that losing one woman would have been less damaging to a tribe's long-term survival rate than losing one man, especially in tribes that lacked loafers or social justice warriors. I have not come across data that declares with certainty that men were indeed 'disposable,' as in expendable, worthless, and needless in humanity's march to dominate the planet."[3]

The disposability of men is a central theme in Walter Block's Seminar on Sexism and Racism, which holds, "Virtually all the leaders, the CEOs, the math, the physics, the chess, are males. That is why we have a glass ceiling. Not because of prejudice, or discrimination, or capitalism being evil, or anything like that. It's because women are God's or nature's insurance policy and men are His crap shoot. And in the crap shoot, some men get very, very good genes, and other men get very bad genes and end up in a bad way."

Feminists sometimes claim to be helping oppose the male disposability ideas contained in "macho" attitudes, and to be helping keep men from dying by being anti-war.[4] Of course, one could counter-argue that getting rid of macho attitudes that tell men to value liberty, justice, family, country, principle, etc. more highly than life itself, and to be willing to fight for what is right, makes men easier for women to control.

Heartiste writes, "Men are expendable. Women are perishable."[5]

References[edit]

External links[edit]