~ archived since 2018 ~
~ archived since 2018 ~
| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Are men the most disposable sex ?It should be mentioned that I'm referring primarily to the Paleolithic era (up until 10,000-15,000 years ago), when most megafauna was still around. Today you have tribes that prefer big game when it's available, like the Hadza in Tanzania or the Aché in Paraguay. To add, if the fat-protein ratio is too low, like in rabbits and other small prey, it can lead to an excess of proteins, which the liver can't process. Medium and large animals instead have a much higher percentage of fat. | /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates | 30/07/26 10:23 PM |
| 6 | Are men the most disposable sex ?You’re fixating on womb count as if humans are bacteria dividing in a petri dish. Giving birth is just step one, keeping an infant alive to reproductive age takes 15 years of massive caloric investment and defense. | /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates | 30/07/26 09:11 PM |
| 4 | Are men the most disposable sex ?Do you agree that 50 women can output twice the amount of children that 25 women can? And that 25 men, can provide any amount of women with the sperm they need to be impregnated? Yes of course you do. It's not only the number of births, but how many can survive to adulthood. Your argument seems to revolve around 2 things: - genetic diversity (I said 25 men, not a handful) - calorie access My first point was that your example still had too many women for the reproductive issues to kick in. The fi… | /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates | 30/07/26 08:43 PM |
| 10 | Are men the most disposable sex ?Both your example and the broader premise that women have more biological value, looking only at the reproductive capacity is too reductive. | /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates | 30/07/26 01:48 PM |
| 9 | Are men the most disposable sex ?I don't entirely agree with this. First, your example is already flawed as 25 women are still enough to sustain the tribe. Second, even if we assume that only a handful of men remain, the genetic dead-end of the tribe is still inevitable, although this would take longer than in the opposite scenario. Humans are a slow-reproducing species (K-selected), whose offspring take a long time to mature. To do so, they need food (depending on the climate, men can contribute from 30% to 90% of the caloric … | /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates | 30/07/26 01:17 PM |
| 5 | Considering the Male Disposability Hypothesis — Maria KouloglouI am glad to finally see someone pushing back against this narrative about men being "disposable" and the sex ratio being very close to parity (slightly more males are born because of the higher infant mortality, so to actually compensate) already shows that (nature wouldn't produce so many males if that was the case). In complex creatures like us reproduction is relatively less important than survival (r-selection vs K-selection) because our offspring need a lot of time to grow and that's where… | /r/MensRights | 05/08/25 08:36 PM |
| 1 | Life as a man is a scamThe situation is what it is and feeling discouraged can be understood but the self-defeatism in this comment makes my blood boil...this should be a safe space for all those Boys and Men that are searching for answers, a space where they can share their problems and get some understanding, comfort, encouragement and Hope instead of all the hateful and harmful retoric they get from most of society..yet, I'm here reading that we are weak and will always be because we would do anything for some puss… | /r/MensRights | 26/05/25 12:16 AM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter