~ archived since 2018 ~

GENUINE QUESTION: What are your views on male societal and genetic disposability?

Strikester101

April 20, 2020

2 upvotes

To elaborate, societal disposability is when deaths of or atrocities against males are not taken as seriously as that of and against females.

Genetic disposability is something I pondered about for quite a while; besides how it takes less men to have a large population than women, as well as obvious physiological differences such as greater physical strength (hence, necessary for tough work and drudgery), do males have distinct genetic advantages and disadvantages relative to women? If so, what are they and, in objective sense of word, does that make any of them technically "disposable"?

And before anyone accuses me of being an eugenecist or male supremacist (I'm neither, they disgust me), please see this post for a proper elucidation for why the fuck I made this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g4fg46/genuine_question_are_men_genetically_disposable/

PS: For those who are aware of CRISPR, gene-editing and designer babies, is it possible to overcome the genetic disadvantages both sexes have using this technology? Are there any sex-based limitations?

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	GENUINE QUESTION: What are your views on male societal and genetic disposability?
Author	Strikester101
Upvotes	2
Comments	24
Date	April 20, 2020 4:26 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/g4vxaq/genuine_question_what_are_your_views_on_male/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/genuine-question-what-are-your-views-on-male.1198948 https://theredarchive.com/post/1198948

Comments

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

In a crisis, survival-or-extinction scenario, I would say the hard math is that men should be in riskier job positions.

Since we have 8 billion people on the planet, I think the argument that wins is just because something is natural does not mean it is right. I think the uphill battle facing the MRM is to overcome, (perhaps overcome is too strong a word,) or move towards widespread awareness and acknowledgement of male disposability in society.

I think our gynocentric instinct is too strong to be gotten rid of, but I hope it's excesses can be tempered through identification and acknowledgement of the bias.

Feminism would have you believe that the bias goes strictly in the other direction. But they suffer from Apex fallacy- they are so focused on achieving equality or dominance over the top 1% they don't even acknowledge, (or if they do, don't care,) they are stepping on the throats of lower status men as a boost.

This is why I am antifeminist.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]SonnBaz 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

You don't prove this assertion at all.

I don't. Everything is part instinct, part education. The ability to walk is partly instinct, partly education. The ability to speak English is part instinct, part education. The ability to code is part instinct, part education.

You want to say it isn't partly instinctual? Prove it. The blank slate theory is long rejected.

I for one never had a "gynocentric instinct,"

And some people are born with empathy. That doesn't make empathy less instinctual and part of our genes. What is your point?

Bringing in evolutionary psychology borderline pseudoscience like "gynocentrism is innate because men had to protect women to make the tribe survive" is well too common in the MRM and often justifies a lack of activism and the preservation of a "strong man" posturing.

Believe me, if we could get rid of gynocentrism, I would love it. Have you actually read the post I linked? I have no desire for any "strong man posturing. Thanks for the guilty by association though.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

You want to say it isn't partly instinctual? Prove it. The blank slate theory is long rejected.

You are the one who have to prove it, it's you who made the claim that gynocentrism is an innate instinct.

And some people are born with empathy. That doesn't make empathy less instinctual and part of our genes. What is your point?

Are you personally less empathetic toward males than toward females? I'm genuinely asking and not attacking you on that.

Believe me, if we could get rid of gynocentrism, I would love it.

I think we can. Gynocentrism levels vary a lot between countries and between people which is what leads me to believe that it's not an innate instinct but a learned instinct. Though if someone would prove to me that gynocentrism is innate, I would accept it just like I would accept any other truth.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I strongly suspect that the gynocentric nature in society was evolved in harsh, near extinction environments. The mechanism could be something as simple as the women are wonderful effect.

I don't know. Most of our ancestors held quite misogynistic opinions and the "women are wonderful" effect wasn't a thing then. Now the tables have turned and society has a strong misandristic bias.

Women have a stronger ingroup bias for other women.

Sure. And men have a very hard time organizing and fighting for their own rights and interests. Maybe because of the "strong man posturing" that avoids any narrative that would picture men as victims, I don't know. That should be investigated, understanding the lack of appeal to the MRM (despite widespread opposition or skepticism to feminism) is necessary to improve further activism.

MRAs will never have the numbers that appeared in the Women's March in 2017, which is one of the largest protests in history.

They should rename it the "March of Privilege." The Washington KKK parade of 1926 was then one of the largest protests in American history. Nothing to be proud of.

[–]fbsbchgv 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I mistyped (I should be sleeping since a few hours). I meant to type "some people are born without empathy".

Instincts vary between people. Height vary between people. Doesn't make them less genetic. Something being in our gene doesn't mean it will be there always, at the same strength.

I'm going to return the question to you : do you wince just as much at seing a man being hit across the face as at seeing a woman having the same thing happen, when watching movies (or IRL) ?

I would also point out thezctthat having a poll about how sensitive people are to gynocentrism on a men's right sub is almost the definition of selection bias. One of the reason many people found them here is because they were naturally less sensitive to gynocentrism. Personally, I could be diagnosed as asperger, so social conventions aren't exactly the thing I understand the best. And I always treated men and women about the same. I didn't receive a warm welcome for that. I think there is a study that shows that when people treat women exactly as they treat men, they are perceived as treating them worse (although research including the term women, men and bias are so polluted I can't find it back right now)

You are the one who have to prove it, it's you who made the claim that gynocentrism is an innate instinct.

Nope, I made the claim that it is partly innate. Are you willing to say that men and women developped dimorphic bodies, but no instinct to go along with them? Did evolution stop at the neck?

As I said, it is always a mix of instinct and education. You are the one proposing that instinct has nothing at all to do with it. You are the one proposing something outside what is usual, you are the one who has to prove it.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I mistyped (I should be sleeping since a few hours). I meant to type "some people are born without empathy".

I understood and answered accordingly.

Instincts vary between people. Height vary between people. Doesn't make them less genetic. Something being in our gene doesn't mean it will be there always, at the same strength.

It varies between people and as much between countries and cultures. Universal instincts like sexual instinct don't vary much between cultures.

I'm going to return the question to you : do you wince just as much at seing a man being hit across the face as at seeing a woman having the same thing happen, when watching movies (or IRL) ?

Yes, I wince as much, believe it or not. In fact I prefer to watch retributive violence against women than retributive violence against men given how extremely under-represented it is in movies. Take for example Once Upon a Time. Some feminist critics criticized the display of violence against women (even though these women were the initiators of violence.) I liked it because I think it's revolutionary to show deserved and retributive on-female violence on the screen in a gynocentric society. Regarding non-retributive violence, I wince as much for either gender - and always have. What about you?

Nope, I made the claim that it is partly innate.

Then you have to prove it.

Are you willing to say that men and women developped dimorphic bodies, but no instinct to go along with them? Did evolution stop at the neck?

There are some strong psychological differences between men and women - like in neuroticism or autism. Gynocentrism would be a very complex instinct for Nature to put in the male brain. I've lived in China for a long time and I've seen much less gynocentrism there which tends to lead me to believe that gynocentrism is a Western disease. But if you can prove me wrong, again I'm always willing to accept the truth so go ahead.

[–]AskingToFeminists -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It varies between people and as much between countries and cultures. Universal instincts like sexual instinct don't vary much between cultures.

Right, thing conditionned by genes don't vary much between culture. That is why is is impossible to distinguish a swed from a pygmy. Or even a british from an italian.

You are preposterous.

Beside, what don't you understand in "partially" instinctual.

I say it is "partially instinctual", and you keep insisting "look, those prove à cultural component, so you are wrong".

Even more preposterous. Are you unable to understand nuance?

As I said, everything is partially instinctual. Every behavior is ruled by some amount of instinct.

Gynocentrism would be a very complex instinct for Nature to put in the male brain.

So is "educating children". Yet, like gynocentrism, it is partially instinctive. And it isn't limited to one sexe's brain. Women are also very gynocentric.

And like "educating children", it is not one unique instinct. It is a set of various instincts having to do with a lot of thing and expressing in various but related ways, and we give that set a name because it is more convenient.

Gynocentrism include things like malagency, the protector and provider role, etc.

Dying to protect your woman is partially instinctive, even though it takes extreme circumstances, in the same way that letting himself being eaten is partially instinctive for the male preying mantis, in some extreme circumstances, even though it is not the default behavior.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you insist so much in saying it isn't partially instinctive. And I would really like for you to support your claim that any behavior is not at least partially instinctive.

I've lived in China for a long time and I've seen much less gynocentrism there

I'm going to doubt that very hard. I am also going to point out that examples of countries with very strong social pressures aren't exactly a good example for what is instinctive behavior in people. Might as well point out to North Korea to say that the desire to wear various clothing and color is not instinctive because such behavior is much less prominent there.

If China is what it takes in social authoritarianism to get people rid of gynocentrism, I'm not sure I'm in.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fbsbchgv 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Walking is pure instinct, actually, things like breathing while running have to be learned

So, you have never seen a baby learn to walk, and you have never had your breathing quicken when exerting yourself without thinking about it?

It is always a mix of nurture and nature.

American English is taking our ability to learn language and using it for American English.

Sooo... It's a mix of nature and nurture.

"Women are Wonderful" takes our ability to categorize and labels the feminine with "valuable object" and the masculine with "Tool."

So I guess we agree.

Just like racial appearance can be taught as a minor detail of appearance, so too can sexual or gendered.

By learning to overcome our instinctive fear of what is new/different or broadening the in-group to include different races.

So, a mix of nature and nurture.

Doesn't make the instinct go away, though. It just takes skillfully manipulating it.

You can teach British English, you can teach non-gendered categorization.

Did I ever say you couldn't? As I pointed about, finding ways to mitigate or even cancel its effects is not getting rid of the instinct. And one of the first step is actually recognizing there is an instinct to circumvent. I see gynocentrism the same way I see obesity. To counter the obesity epidemic, it is useful to understand, raise awareness, and act against the instinct to eat high sugar high fat products, and to punter gynocentrism, it is important to understand, raise awareness and act against malagency.

Saying something is partly instinctive doesn't mean nothing can ever be done about it. My contention is and always have been that something needs to be done about it. Burying our head in the sand isn't going to help, though. We have an instinct to protect and provide for women, we have an instinct to treat women better than men, and to care more about their safety and well being, etc.

It is time people become aware of it, because it is getting out of hand, in the modern environment where those things are much less needed, and measures need to be taken. And no, that doesn't involve traditionalism, which is just another symptom of the same disease, like egalitarian2020 seems to think acknowledging the state of fact that behavior is partly instinctive implies...

Are you actually trying to disagreeing with me? Because I see nothing it your post that seem to do that, yet your tone seems to indicate that you do. But I'm woefully bad at this kind of thing, interpreting social cues and all, so I might be wrong.

[–]fbsbchgv 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fbsbchgv 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fbsbchgv 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link