~ archived since 2018 ~

Many Men become disposable

Skinwalker686

April 5, 2022

50 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Many Men become disposable
Author	Skinwalker686
Upvotes	50
Comments	15
Date	April 5, 2022 12:58 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/twud2r/many_men_become_disposable/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/many-men-become-disposable.1111202 https://theredarchive.com/post/1111202

Comments

[–]throwaway20210821 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]OldEgalitarianMRA 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway20210821 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

The people making these sorts of rationalization need to start being identified as playing a part in condoning harm that is done to men and boys, such as the recent Bucha massacre where males were slaughtered. It needs to be made socially unacceptable. They don't deserve praise for making these arguments. They aren't saying anything worth saying or speaking "harsh truths".

It is no exaggeration, the same arguments used to justify slavery and oppression in the past, because of a "natural" or "genetic" reason.

/u/Axleonder put it well in this post:

"There is no male biological disposability. Societies would actually cease to function or even repopulate without a healthy male population. It is a false concept used to justify hostility in the same way "human biodiversity" is used to justify racism."

As for the faultiness of their arguments, see this excellent post,
as well as further feedback in the comments under the post:

https://promalecollective.wordpress.com/2021/12/08/the-sad-anti-male-myth-of-male-disposability-male-expendability/

[–]shit-zen-giggles -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToadMugen72 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway20210821 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sorebum405 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

While I don't think that the biological argument should be used to rationalize male disposability, I do think it is a valid explanation for why males are treated as more disposable by society.

The article you linked tries to debunk the idea that men are more disposable then women, but the arguments seem pretty weak.

The inbreeding that will occur from such a scenario in successive generations that can result in genetic defects that kill out the host population anyway. This has been speculated to have played a part in contributing to the disappearance of other animal species, such as mammoths (original link: https://www.science.org/content/article/did-inbreeding-doom-mammoth | archived link: https://archive.md/V65SE).

This seems like a ridiculous argument when you consider how large the population is.Our population size is nowhere near small enough for inbreeding to be a real concern.even if we lost half of the male population inbreeding wouldn't be a concern.Thousands of years ago the human population was just a few million people and grew to what it is today. The male population would have to go down significantly for inbreeding to actually be a problem.Also, historically twice as many men reproduced compared to women so we can see that reproductive skew in males didn't lead to the extinction of the human species. throughout history there has been hyper successful men who impregnate multiple women.Ghengis khan is an extreme example of this.

Also,the article he linked as an example is also just speculative, and not definitive proof that inbreeding was the cause of the decline of the mammoth population.

"Paleontologist Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is skeptical, however, noting that the study included only a small number of mammoths and that inbreeding could be purely a result of dwindling population rather than a cause. Still, he says, "there's no question that [the neck rib] represents some interesting natural history."

If men are needed to protect women, then a country with less men (as a result of most of them being killed off) is more vulnerable from countries with more men.

I don't see how this is an argument against the idea that men are more disposable biologically.Men being more disposable doesn't mean their 100% disposable.Just more disposable then women.Men dying off in large numbers is not ideal and would still cause problems, but the reverse would mean you may not even be able to repopulate society quickly enough to prevent population from declining to point of basically going extinct.at least if more men died off you would be able to repopulate.

Then he argues that resistance against male conscription would have never existed if male disposability was real.He also says that this could be challenged in the court of law.This is another bad argument with this same logic I can make the argument that if males were not expendable then male conscription would not have been created in the first place.Also, the desire for self preservation, and keep family members safe, and viewing men as demographic group as disposable is not mutually exclusive.

Men as a demographic group are seen as more disposable then women by society.You as an individual and your family members may disagree with that, but society as a whole is pretty apathetic towards the idea of men being sent off to fight in war.This is almost like saying that some animals are not prey, because they resist being eaten.This also ignores the practicality of sending women to fight instead of men.Men are physically stronger then women and overall more well equipped for war.

Male only conscription is oriented around the idea that you only need a few men to impregnate women, but ignores how there are men that are gay and so don’t impregnate women and that post menopause, women have a very low chance of getting pregnant. It also neglects to mention who will raise the children that are given birth to and is sexist in assuming how women are better caregivers than men, even though child abuse rates are higher for women than for men.

Gay men make up a small percentage of the population.Also, the fact that older women are post menopausal doesn't change that fact that women are the limiting factor in reproduction.Women can raise children on their own.It is not ideal, but it can be done.

It would not be ideal if a large percentage of the male population died off, there would be problems,but it's hard to argue against the fact that it would be even worse for the continuation of the species if a large percentage of the female population died off.

Here is a video were rick Bradford talks about biological evidence that suggest men are the more biologically disposable sex.

[–]raclnp 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway20210821 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

While I don't think that the biological argument should be used to rationalize male disposability, I do think it is a valid explanation for why males are treated as more disposable by society.

It isn't. The reason is laws treating men inhumanely and people rationalizing that it must be because men are "disposable". It's an attempt to brush off men's issues and justify never doing anything about it.

No, if you insist just for the sake of it that men are "biologically disposable" you basically void all arguments against protecting men's rights. That's why people against men's rights constantly make the argument and jump to that conclusion, to justify men never getting equal rights.

I don't see how this is an argument against the idea that men are more disposable biologically.Men being more disposable doesn't mean their 100% disposable.

This is completely irrelevant and you are moving the goal posts and making excuses by saying "it doesn't mean their 100% disposable", as if that is even supposed to mean anything.

This is another bad argument with this same logic I can make the argument that if males were not expendable then male conscription would not have been created in the first place.Also, the desire for self preservation, and keep family members safe, and viewing men as demographic group as disposable is not mutually exclusive.

You clearly didn't read the part where it was shown that conscription arose in times of increased nationalism and imperialism where leaders demanded large armies be raised.

"Also, the desire for self preservation, and keep family members safe, and viewing men as demographic group as disposable is not mutually exclusive."

No it isn't, that's quite frankly a deranged and contradictory view. You are making excuses for deranged and contradictory positions. Keeping family members safe doesn't include sending brothers, sons and husbands to die and be cannon fodder.

Also, the fact that older women are post menopausal doesn't change that fact that women are the limiting factor in reproduction.Women can raise children on their own.It is not ideal, but it can be done

Men are able to raise children on their own too. Your insinuation that "women can raise children on their own" as if they are the primary caregivers, when they abuse children at higher rates than men, is ridiculous and misandrist. Women aren't the limiting factor in reproduction from being "better caretakers" (which is just a myth and contradicted by child abuse statistics).

Men are physically stronger then women and overall more well equipped for war.

You deliberately ignore men that are weaker than women and disabled men that have been sent to die in war anyway. You ignore that women can use force multipliers that can overcome average strength differences. You show complete lack of regard for men that are physically weak but that are drafted to die and ignore their existence.

Nobody would ever make these same excuses for any other group of people because it is not socially acceptable to do so. It's not evidence of "disposability" but the empathy gap, which is made worse by feminism focusing excessively on women to the detriment of men.

[–]Axleonder 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]raclnp -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gorgonrock 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Skinwalker686[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link