Male disposability in life & dating

Post Reply New Topic

This is a response to those guys on here (such as sly279) who say its unfair that fat women don't struggle to find partners (eventually) but fat men do struggle greatly. We could also postulate that as to why skinny women are seen as "fit" yet not skinny men... et cetera. And those guys that think its unfair that jobless women are dateable but not jobless men, or even men that earn low wages. Also the dating experiments that prove it's FACT that average-looking women get comically greater volumes of messages and interest than average-looking men. Obese women get even more messages than healthy weight average men even. I could also throw in disability (including Aspergers, not that I think its a disability), and how we Aspie men are seen as considerably more 'worthless' than our female counterparts, even females with a more severe disability or social impairment. Then we have the media that promulgates male disposability only further,often with the tabloids distorting facts in cases. For example there is great focusing on men with Aspergers and autism, that we are 'criminal' etc, only further creating a sense of disposability among a group of men who are otherwise, law-abiding, likeable people who make terrific colleagues, friends, partners and fathers.

The sex roles that drove a man's and a woman's behavior for thousands of years had great impact on each sex. One of the impacts of the sex role on men was the attitude of disposability that developed over the years. By that I mean the tendency of people to be less likely to get emotionally close to men and to see them as expendable. Why would that be?

Imagine we are living long ago and the women were caring for the hearth and the children and making forays to gather while the men were more likely to go out and hunt or defend the tribe/watchmen. The relative danger of those two behaviors is not subtle. Going out to defend your tribe is decidedly more dangerous and the liklihood of the man returning home after was much smaller than the same liklhood for the woman performing her daily activities. When we dont' expect someone to return what impact does that have on our interest in making an emotional attachment to them? It diminishes. We are less likely to invest our emotional ergs into someone or something that we fear may not be with us. This was obviously not just around the issue of war or hunting, but in dating too. Men were expected to guard women from other men within their own troop. This was a dangerous activity and again, increased the liklihood that the 'lesser' man would be disappearing. The 'lesser man' or highly disposable man is ugly, or simply more unmanly looking: fatness/obesity, poor facial symmetry, short height, scrawny, reduced, weak-looking etc. This is why women love muscles, height and guys with strong facial bones (absorb blows better). They simply look like better warriors.

We tend to not invest in folks who we fear will not do a good job protecting and will not be returning. Yet another example is modern war time. Men were the ones who were expected to go to war and die protecting the village/community/country.

This diminished investment is not subtle but very few people are aware of their own tendency to do this. Let's try an exercise to evaluate your way of thinking. Has it ever bothered you that if you see f.e. an injured cyclist with a bloodied head? Are you are more likely to help out if its a woman? but you're not even aware that your doing this? What about modern warfare? it is only males expected to go and die in case of a national emergency? Does that bug you? Okay, now imagine that congress in all its wisdom has changed the law and decided that we need to draft only girls and women until an equal number of women and girls have died in combat to the numbers of men and boys who have died. Would that upset you? Why? Do you value women and girls more than boys and men? How about if we decided to draft only Black people? Maybe only Jews? Would either of those groups being sacrificed upset you? Would you protest for any of those to not be the only group drafted? Can you feel in your bones how upsetting that would be? If you answered yes to any of those questions, how was your response different from thinking it is okay to draft only men? If you had a different reaction then you are likely holding some of that tendency to consider men and older boys to be more disposable.

You can see this tendency in many places. Boys and men comprise almost 80% of suicides and yet we have no outcry or services specifically for this. Men and boys are over 90% of the workplace deaths in the Unted States but no one seems to notice. Over 97% if the deaths of U.S. servicemen in Iraq are men and boys and yet we hear no protest in support of men and boys or calls for equality. Men are the victims of domestic violence and workplace bullying in considerable numbers and yet we have no services directed towards their needs. All we need to do is open our eyes to see the extent that men and boys are seen as expendable. It is all around us. Ever heard of the wife telling the husband she will go investigate the loud noise that awoke them from a deep sleep?

The age old sex role for men has trickled down into a straight-jacket that harnesses men to be the expendable ones. Most people are simpy unconscious of this and treat men according to their own unconscious programming.

Meh...I don’t really have a problem with being “disposable.” This life has done me few favors other than my wife and kids, who are all I’m really living for, anyway, and I kinda get excited over the idea of Death paying me a visit. No, I’m not in a HURRY to die, but I’m not exactly running from it, either.

Men are men. We don’t carry new human life inside us, we’re not exactly virtuous in all the best ways, we’re not very pretty. Our value is in what we DO, our ability to care for each other and those we love. Women’s value IS in their beauty—when a woman dies, the world loses some of its beauty. The nurturing attributes of mothers and big sisters. They get angry with us because we tend to want to fix things rather than validate, while women are often all validation. They just listen better than men do. I like how women are just naturally more creative and artistic than men tend to be, how there just seems to be more heart in what women do. How women really are smarter than men (think about it!).

I’m not a male feminist by any stretch, and I don’t care who thinks I objectify women. Women fascinate me. I think if one sex deserves more of the world it’s women.

Another way of looking at our disposability, a little less sentimental:

I really don’t care if someone thinks I’m disposable. I don’t want anyone to be that dependent on me. I don’t want to have to answer to anyone. If a girl can throw me away that easily, I don’t need her.

Hello from a fellow drone.

As far as I know guys actually have it easier in terms of dating while women experience hardships after they turn a certain age o-o If they're lucky enough to look young for their age then that helps a lot, but 30 generally is considered old for women and then people wonder if there is something wrong for someone to be that old and single still. As for working guys vs non working guys, I've seen unemployed guys that have so much game that they can pull women like its nothing. They may not keep the relationships long term but that doens't mean they can't get a date.

You are a perfect example of how the unconscious programming manifests itself. Everything you've written here is just complete nonsense..

I guess you don't think Mozart, Shakespeare and Picasso were all that creative or artistic, or that Einstein, Tesla and Newton were all that smart.

I have no earthly idea how you have arrived at these conclusions, all the greatest things ever created throughout human history, have been creations of men. Why do show so little regard for your fellow men?
Men ARE smarter, more creative, more artistic than women, that's simply a fact. Many men have sacrificed their lives to save others, how dare you say men have less heart in what they do.

I guess in your view, spending time on taking instagram pictures, putting on makeup and going out shopping is the essence of virtue...

I've met plenty of men who were dumber and less creative than me.

Wow, you seem really angry!
Are women in Sweden really all about "taking instagram pictures, putting on makeup and going out shopping" only? Then I suspect too much of well-being spoils people.
@XFilesGeek, it was one of my main problems with looking for a man - they are very uncomfortable with a woman too good at science.
As for the OP, these thoughts remind me Warren Farrell talks. He uses exactly the same word: men are disposable.

And those who know my survivalist perspective on gender, know also the explanation I use for this: women have more value in the survival of the species - because 1 woman and 10 men can't get much more children than 1 woman and 1 man, but 10 women and 1 man can have the same number of offspring as 10 women and 10 men (althought less genetically diverse).
The evolution is survival-oriented, so the women and children are naturally protected more - because our species is very inefficient in procreation and they are hard to replace. Making theories of virtues... I just don't believe it. It's all about generations of survival inside our brains.

But I said this before, in some other thread - in the survival-oriented society every woman needed a man to go hunting for her when she was caring for the kids. Now we got out of this nature-economics balance. And, IMO, the men are disadvantaged now.

But almost every.notable philosopher, scientist, doctor, engineer, inventor, mathematician, designer, etc. In history were men.

Average man and woman have equal.IQs but men simply it out more geniuses.

And don't try to argue "women were oppressed they couldn't become scientists or doctors" thats changed today and there's still not many amazing female scientists, inve tors, philosopher etc.

All i can think of is a woman is leading in robotic sciences, who's name I can't remember.

And Ayn Rand, one of the most well known female philosophers/political critiques published her works long before feminism gave women the opportunity to start being top scientists, inventors, philosophers, etc.

All major innovations in human histpry have been by Men.

What Closet Genius failed to mention is men are also ultimately more predisposed war and violence in The world, but I don't always see our violent nature as a problem and it does have some benefits. It was natural since our ancestors fought with other tribes and hunted animals so.men degepopes more tendencies toward violence. Violence when used to protect and defend is not wrong.

I didn't say most major scientific advances hadn't been by men.

They have. But most serial killers, child molestors, rapists, violent thugs, war criminals, ect. have also been men, so it tends to even out.

And women have, in fact, contributed to society in plenty of ways. As it stands, society doesn't place the same amount of value on women's roles as it does on men's roles.

Truthfully, if women wouldn't put in a forcefully subordinate position in past and present societies, there would have even been MORE contributions by women than have been publicized.

I have, in my life, met many intrepid women who have lots to offer---but they are stymied by certain expectations.

I am a man who could have done great things, but I have been stymied---by myself.

Telling me that I'm angry is quite frankly unproductive, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I am just tired of men constantly throwing eachother under the bus. It strikes me as a very simplistic, reptilian, almost sitcom way of thinking. It's also a very easy way of trying to make yourself look great. Men get applauded for talking s**t about other men, it makes me sick. Because it destroys any kind of compassion men could have for eachother.

Why does the rhetoric about men always have to be about how stupid and evil they are. How about giving just an ounce of respect to the men who have contributed so immensely to our civilization.
There are men who have acted completely selflessly to help others, to the point of sacrificing their own lives. That's certainly not something women do too often, yet angel has the nerve to say women have more heart and are more virtuous..

XFiles: excellent points.

Again, I’ll gladly wear the badge of anti-Feminist, anytime. This is NOT about hating men. It’s about keeping mens’ practical roles in perspective.

Ever wonder WHY the performing arts are so male-dominated? Why there aren’t more Clara Shumanns or Hildegardes of Bingen, or, heck, Ellen Taafe Zwillichs out there? PART of it is that the historical tradition or convention is that it’s wrong for women to outshine their husbands. It’s a good thing we don’t live that way now because everyone in my house would have starved to death by now.

I’ve asked women this question. You know what they said to me? They asked me WHY they’d ever want to. They don’t have time for that. They’re too busy practicing vocal music and techniques, or doing Hanon exercises on the piano, or giving lectures and recitals, or doing something that actually gets them PAID. They don’t CARE.

And if they don’t care, they are traitors to the cause of women. But if they make the effort, they “sound too much like men.” They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

But...

Traditional folk arts and crafts DO tend to be dominated by women. Screw the “dead European man” music. I’d rather listen to a woman with a decent voice and a guitar and her own songs ANY day.

And SERIOUSLY...

That “dead white man” music—how many portraits of womanly virtue are there within that body of work? Seems to me every single one. More or less. The beautiful, the bitchy, the innocent, the temperamental, the harpy and the saint, the heroine, the victim, the goddess, the femme fatale... ALL THERE. Those musical worms are enduring monuments in honor of the women who inspired their creation. Why aren’t the greatest works by women? Dude...women ARE the work. Women are poetry in motion. Women are music, light, and dance. Women are passion, anger, fire, cold, peace, tranquility. Just because a woman wasn’t the one who scribbled her name to it doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve the credit for it.

Well, if I recall right, the male IQ bell curve is "flatter", meaning there are more male geniuses than females, but more male mentally challenged than females (probably due to conditions like Down Syndrome more common in males).

Just a funny historical fact, as you know midwifery was exclusively a female profession in the past (and still 99% dominated by females today) - women in this profession has kept used the same same same same things, when
William Smellie entered the profession as the first male midwife in Britain....and boom! He invented things! One of them was the forceps which saved many lives during labours.

And before I forget...

Both in the home of the common man and in palace politics, women have often been the power behind the throne. Don’t be deceived by the lack of visibility of women throughout history. Very often the course of a household or even a nation is heavily dependent on a woman’s influence.

It's all preference, I'd say most male singer songwriters are vastly more talented, both technically and creatively, they also tend to be alot more original. Women tend to just copy great men.

Dude... You can't just take credit away from the artist and give it to the inspiration. Are all of taylor swifts songs not her songs then because she wrote them about her boyfriends, so her boyfriends ARE the work? C'mon now that's just stupid. Making art is work, it doesn't just come out of thin air. There's also a vast amount of music that has nothing to do with women, or men for that matter, but about other aspects of life.

Genius and innovation is both rare and useful and that why it is valued more: it is not disposable. Since people working in those roles tend to be overwhelmingly male, those roles and the men related to them are valued more, which is pretty understandable.

Women's roles are useful but common, just like is the case when a man is working an ordinary job that has to do with upkeeping rather than creating something innovative. People like those are disposable, because there are a ton of other individuals that can work on them even if someone stops.

So it's more accurate to say that most of the objectively most important invididuals have been men and then there is the larger lower caste of ordinary workers, consisting of the majority of men and the vast majority of women, each who are more or less disposable as individuals.