Anyone on Tumblr wanna take a crack at this (cough) fine piece of writing?

femdelusion · 2013-09-08T14:13:36+00:00

They seem to be presenting a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or. All they've done is present reasons that theoretically could limit the extent to which a 'male=disposable' psychology would be selected for because of the importance of pair-bonding for the reproductive success of the offspring. All this actually entails is that an equilibrium point would develop in the overall population between 'male=disposable' and 'male=needed for paternal investment'. Everything depends on the numbers at that point. If the paternal investment thing is suitably strong (i.e. such that single mothers always brought up unsuccessful children), it would cancel out any disposability. But there's no reason to think that this would be the case a priori.

Moreover, it precludes the possibility of something slightly more nuanced coming about as an evolved psychological mechanism. You can get the following sort of hypothesis: that a good evolutionarily stable strategy would be one that took social status, or a proxy for it, into account: something like "Low resource male=disposable".

Certainly, when you look at the history of civilisation, it's not hard to see who gets to the frontline - the lowest status males. I still think South Park puts it best.

I should emphasise that this is all pie-in-the-sky stuff. Ultimately, it's down to what can be demonstrated using the empirical evidence. Let's be friends to evolutionary psychologists by not being like RedPillers and grossly misrepresenting the empirical base of the theories involved, and let's stress that EP is an on-going research paradigm as opposed to one theory with very definite results. Or, in short, leave it to the experts.

Tammylan · 2013-09-08T15:50:31+00:00

I'll have a crack at it:

"Male disposability" theory, made popular by GirlWritesWhat, is not a proper model to explain how males in specific areas of society may be disadvantaged. It is a viable model at the population level, but not the individual level"

Tell that to the guys who got trench foot while sitting in hastily dug holes in WWII during the coldest winter in a century, had their feet amputated due to frostbite, and still got court martialed for it. And they were the lucky ones, even if they sometimes envied their dead comrades.

Tell it to the guys in WWI who got gassed or had to charge machine gun emplacements, and felt pressured to do so by women (who faced no such pressure whatsoever) giving them white feathers.

Tell it to the guys who got spat on when they came back from Vietnam after they'd been drafted into a war they wanted no more of a part in than the guys in WWI and WWII had done.

If you talk to them (which you can't, because they got gassed or riddled with bullets and/or shrapnel and they're fucking dead), ask them if their death felt "individual" or personal to them.

Given that they were human beings with thoughts, feelings and emotions, just like any fucking pathetic social justice warrior on tumblr, I'd say that yes, they thought it effected them as an individual.

The idea of male disposability isn't just a "theory". It's not something that GirlWritesWhat simply conjured from the depths of her arse. It's something that millions of men have lived through and died because of, you vapid piece of self-righteous filth.

I'm not claiming that women have it better than men. But if you can't find any empathy for the men throughout history who've had it worse than you as you sit in your air-conditioned college dorm posting on tumblr, then you're scum.

And I'm well aware that the opposite case is also true. I'm just a guy sitting in front of a computer monitor. I can't imagine what it was like for, say, the "comfort women" raped by the Japanese army. But then again, I'm not diminishing the lived experiences of tens of thousands, or even millions of other people, like this despicable asswipe SJW that OP quoted.

ZimbaZumba · 2013-09-08T18:07:35+00:00

Therefore, if the male in a mating pair were to run off or be eaten, the reproductive success of the pair would be critically compromised.

No, he still has to give of his resources without the benefits of the division of labor. It's called child support and has disrupted the evolutionary forces previously in play.

SJW_Scum · 2013-09-08T17:24:44+00:00

Tumblr finally took an entry-level biology course. I will afford xim a moment of my time.

Male disposability theory posits that females are less disposable than males because they are the limiting factor in population growth […] This makes sense when you consider r-selected species (species that produce numerous offspring and little to no parental care). However, in K-selected species (species that produce few offspring and provide a great deal of parental care, like humans), male disposability theory falls apart because, at the population level, both males and females limit population growth optima.

r/K Selection @ Wikipedia. It's a theory that says that species have r traits and/or K traits as a reproductive strategy. r species tend to produce high numbers of offspring, mature quickly, and live short lifespans. K species do the opposite.

r/K is an simplification if what actually happens (it depends on the biome and carrying capacity and no species is purely r or K), but it's good enough for introductory biology courses.

Therefore, if the male in a mating pair were to run off or be eaten, the reproductive success of the pair would be critically compromised.

It would be ~~critically~~ compromised. You're in factsland now. Watch your adjectives. Nuances suddenly become important in a world where shades of grey is not just a book title.

but does not further continue to explain that life-history strategy in humans has evolved to accommodate females due to the massive amount of energy and risk invested in reproduction (9-month incubation periods, risk of maternal mortality during childbirth ect.).

Elephants gestate for 24 months, and they are strong independent females who don't need no male.

She notes that the importance societies placed on women was necessary for their survival, but neglects to mention that both females and males provide critical services for each other in such survival conditions.

An argument could be made that population growth dynamics have made favored the evolution of a mating system that provisions for females and children due to population dynamics.

Do not say "an argument could be made" and not follow up with facts. In factsworld, your argument currently has 0 points. The mere existence of your argument lends it no merit. Science does not have time for insinuations.

But GirlWritesWhat does not mention that such provisioning for both children and mothers is in the best interests of males as well, if said male wishes to propagate his genes over multiple generations. In short, males have always been important, especially in K-selected species like humans.

Male survival enhances the success of their progeny, but is not strictly important. If someone with a weapon attacks a a couple with a baby, which member can you risk the most if the baby's success is priority.

So, are males seen as disposable, historically? In my opinion, no.

Your opinion means nothing in factsworld without facts. The problem is not that males are seen as disposable, which I will charitably say you have argued against to some effect. The problem is that men are seen as significantly more disposable, which you have done nothing to debunk.

But are males disadvantaged in specific areas in society? Absolutely. I never argued that gender roles weren’t a bad thing. Just look at any other blog in this community to find the evidence for why.

"Gender roles" is twenty cans of worms. You cannot tie in such a controversial subject in the same post. Make one argument, imbue it with facts, and test it against scrutiny. Then make the next, and work your way towards tying it into gender roles.

You must construct a foundation of steel before you build so much as a paper tower. In factsworld, a single major mistake in your logic, your arguments, your references, etc. is enough destroy your tower. Science has routinely cast out published research where many millions of dollars were invested because of one errant assumption.

As technology advances, however, these dynamics may change for better or worse. If societies evolve to favor reducing an emphasis on reproduction altogether (for example, to address overpopulation, which I wholly endorse), it may level the playing field as both male and female value can not be strongly correlated to their reproductive capabilities, but their ability to contribute to societal function.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. What is "better" and what is "worse".

On the other side of the coin, as we continue to shield ourselves from natural selection, reliance on direct male contribution becomes less important in raising offspring.

Sexual selection. SEXUAL SELECTION.

Note, this is often times necessary for single mothers in extenuating circumstances to have access to support networks to help them raise their children, and important to keep in place.

This is a social issue and to address this would make this post obnoxiously longer.

However, if one day we as a society begin no longer viewing men as active agents in reproduction and raising children, and instead as “sperm pumps” where you stop in for 15 minutes to get your baby and then forget about it, then we can say that men have become truly disposable.

A "sperm pump" male paradigm does not imply the male is disposable. What will likely happen is exceedingly strong sexual selection with likely winner take all (or most). Many males will not get to reproduce, while a few will literally be that "golden seed" shit that was posted a few days ago.

You posted too some arguments, did not support them with facts or even a single citation. (This is Tumblr, I'll fucking take Wikipedia as a scholarly source.) You make propositions instead. You proceeded to open cans of worms without dealing with the worms. I do give you credit from not just going all feels and encourage you to try again. Receiving criticism is a privilege, use them to make your next try stronger.

Unfortunately, the greatest problem with your essay was that you addressed the wrong assumption: males as a class are disposable, The male was never disposable in the first place. The man was.

Frankly_No · 2013-09-08T18:32:43+00:00

"Male disposability" theory, made popular by GirlWritesWhat

lolwut The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex (1993), "The explosive international bestseller". This muggle doesn't know the first thing about male disposability.

All they did was present a hypothesis as to why men might not be disposable, they didn't provide any evidence to back it up. How do they account for the vast majority of deaths in war throughout human history being male? Why have men always been the ones to fight wild animals for food, or work in mines? Has a woman ever dueled to the death with someone over a man?

tyciol · 2013-09-09T06:40:07+00:00

GirlWritesWhat does not mention that such provisioning for both children and mothers is in the best interests of males as well, if said male wishes to propagate his genes over multiple generations.

I'm pretty sure GWW did actually touch on this at some point.

It's also untrue because providing for them doesn't help spread your genes if you're cuckolded, and not all men are interested in gene-passing yet are still held to a system that expects them to look out for women promised to other men and be victim to them.

kevinwayne · 2013-09-08T13:32:24+00:00

I think especially his last paragraph can be responded to quite handily. I sent the link to Karen, but never heard back on it.

kevinwayne · 2013-09-08T16:03:44+00:00

Appreciate all the participation so far. Hopefully someone will respond & reblog on Tumblr also. I already have, but this needs more input.

johntheother · 2013-09-08T20:49:14+00:00

Tiny white text on a black background. Also, no, I will not change my monitor settings to render the page readable.

Title	Anyone on Tumblr wanna take a crack at this (cough) fine piece of writing?
Author	kevinwayne
Upvotes	14
Comments	16
Date	September 8, 2013 1:31 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1lywr9/anyone_on_tumblr_wanna_take_a_crack_at_this_cough/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/anyone-on-tumblr-wanna-take-a-crack-at-this-cough.1164396 https://theredarchive.com/post/1164396

Comments