ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Social Pathology Of Male Disposability

Updated on October 3, 2015

The Epidemic Of Male Youth Suicide In The US

Source

Boys Are Stupid Throw Rocks At Them - Imagine The Public Outrage If It Were Girls

Source

Male Disposability In Mainstream Media - Just Imagine The Outrage If We Reversed The Gender

Much has been said about the concept of male disposability in the men’s human rights movement. In this article I wanted to present a different perspective on the underlying evolutionary dynamics underpinning this concept. Given my former background in molecular biology, I am well versed in this subject. Nonetheless, I will attempt to keep my explanations as simple as possible for those people in the mainstream who may not have a scientific background or an understanding of genetics.

I would agree that an attitude of male disposability exists within mainstream Western culture. I would also agree that men have historically been obligated to provide and protect for women and children and even risk their lives in the process of performing that role (i.e male only conscription). However when we say something is disposable, we are often referring to an object that has little value or is easily replaceable. The context in which we use words often matters as much as their meaning. It is for this reason that I find male disposability not only extremely offensive, but also completely invalid from a scientific perspective. Male disposability is an attitude with no solid biological basis to it and it can be easily dismissed once we start examining the role of men and women more closely.

After reading this article, you might want to check out the section in my article debunking female supremacy, where I go into more technical detail on the evolutionary biology underpinning this article and disproving the idea that men are less valuable than women and why men are not biologically disposable. I cover r/K selection theory, fishers principle, the life history model of evolution and the sexual and natural selective dynamics driving the sexual dimorphism in our species. So if this article does not convince you that men are in fact not biologically disposable and are instead as biologically valuable to our species as women are, please consult these sections in my article debunking the pseudoscience of female supremacy. The relevant sections can be found a third to mid-way through the rather large article and are titled:

"The Myth A Woman’s Life Has More Value Than A Man’s"

"A Detailed Account Of Evolutionary Biology Explaining Why Men Are Just As Valuable As Women"

There are further sections that are relevant to debunking this nonsense that immediately follow those two in the article, but the sections listed above are the main ones.

The link to the relevant article is here.

My hope is that this article and the sections I have listed above, will be sufficient for most people to unlearn this warped, distorted and wrong understanding of how evolution works and correct their skewed view of the relative value of the sexes in our species. Male disposability is a social pathology and an element of gynocentrism (see this article), it has nothing to do with the biological value of men and women. As I discuss in the last section of this article, this social pathology emerges from our dysfunctional perception of vulnerability between the genders in our modern societal environment and culture.


A Brief Look At History

For about 160-166 million years, our evolutionary line has had male and female organisms based on a XY chromosomal sex determining system. Some estimates have even placed the origins of maleness and femaleness as far back as 300 million years. To put that in perspective, 160 million years ago was during the Jurassic period when dinosaurs were walking the Earth and Gondwana and Laurasia were the only continents on the planet.

To suggest that nature would invest half the genome of Homo sapiens and our ancestors in a disposable creature, in the face of at least 160 million years (possibly 300 million years) of natural selective pressures is absurd. Not only has there been numerous environmental challenges facing our ancestors over that timeframe, including major shifts in the climate and geological activity, but there have also been multiple extinction level events (one of which wiped out the dinosaurs). Natural selection generally does not look too kindly on permitting disposable creatures or traits to continue to exist, especially over hundreds of millions of years. It is inefficient and the harsh prehistoric environment did not give much room for inefficiency. Clearly the male gender has survived its passage through all of our ancestors and up until modern humans, precisely because we were essential and not disposable.


Selfish Gene Theory And The Genetic Equality Of The Sexes

So with that said, let us look at human evolutionary biology and evolution in general. Natural selection works at the level of the gene. It is a change in the sequence of base pairs of nucleotides that comprise a gene, that gives rise to adaptations that enhance a species continued existence. This paradigm is called selfish gene theory and it has solid empirical evidence behind it. Genes are housed in vehicles we call organisms and we simply function as carriers of the genome. For the purposes of this article, the two types of vehicles under discussion are male and female.

Under the forces of natural selection, there is a driving force for the genome to create as many replicates of itself as possible. The genes and genomes that exist today do so, because they produced the greatest number of replicates of themselves over millions of years of natural selection. The genome is only concerned with how many copies of itself exist. If there was a goal to evolution or an intended outcome, this would be it.

Men and women both carry the genome and produce the gametes required to perpetuate that genome. For this reason, our genes split the critical role of perpetuating the genome and the species equally between the genders. If they did not, then it would mean the genome would be more dependent on one type of vehicle for its continued existence. This is analogous to putting all your eggs in one basket. Such an unequal investment would lead to enhanced risk of losing part or all of the genome. Thus there is a natural selective pressure for the two types of vehicle, male and female, to contribute equally to the perpetuation of the genome to diversify the risk. This improves the versatility of the genome to not only persist in spite of environmental shocks and adverse conditions, but also to flourish.

These equal roles require an equal investment of time, energy and other costs in producing males and females. If they did not, then it would mean one gender would be a more efficient investment than the other in perpetuating the genome. Consequently, we would expect a preference for the female or male vehicle over the other. This would lead to a greater dependence on one type of vehicle and once again enhanced risk. Therefore just as the role of each vehicle in perpetuating the genome is equal, so is the investment made by the genome in producing each vehicle.

The equal reproductive payoff or contribution made to perpetuating the species by men and women and the equal cost or parental investment in producing male and female offspring, are the key assumptions underlying Fisher theorem. Fisher theorem explains why so many species have a 1:1 sex ratio at birth, including humans. As the investment or cost of producing men and women is equal and because the reproductive payoff or contribution to the perpetuation of the genome is equal, the sex ratio settles at 1:1.

If male and female offspring cost the same and have the same reproductive payoff, then parents of such offspring will invest equally in producing male and female offspring. If there was a sudden deviation from such an equal investment, such that there were more females than males in the population, then parents which then started producing more male offspring would have a reproductive advantage. Male offspring would face less competition for the opposite sex than female offspring and therefore would have greater reproductive success. Consequently, parents over time would start developing a tendency to produce more male offspring and the number of males to females would even out once again. This is Fisher theorem in action and the equal investment in both genders is what is called the evolutionary stable strategy and is a form of nash equilibrium. Any deviation from a 1:1 sex ratio, will eventually be short-lived through Fisher dynamics and therefore the 1:1 sex ratio is said to be “stable”.

In humans the sex ratio at birth is 1.05 males to 1 female. It is postulated under Fisher theorem that the slightly skewed sex ratio in favour of males, is a compensatory response of our reproductive biology to the slightly higher infant mortality among male infants. This biological adjustment ensures that parents invest equally in males and females from birth to adulthood and that both vehicles contribute equally to the perpetuation of the genome.


Survival And Reproduction, Two Sides Of The Same Coin

There are two primary processes that facilitate the perpetuation of the genome, survival and reproduction. More specifically, survival and reproduction of the vehicles and the genomes they contain. To produce the maximum number of replicates of the genome and associated offspring, an organism must survive for a long enough period of time to reproduce to its maximum possible extent. Survival and reproduction are actually both part of a grander process, the perpetuation of the genome and the species.

As can seen by any observer, men and women are different. These differences are physiological and psychological. We call such sexual differences sexual dimorphism. Humans have an intermediate level of sexual dimorphism. Why is there sexual dimorphism? The female contains the uterus of the species and as a result they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. The maximum rate of reproductive output for a female is on average 9 months, due to the 9 month gestation period. In the same time period, a male can literally father dozens of offspring. In addition to this, because women carry the unborn fetus for 9 months, they are the ones directly responsible for providing it with nutrients during prenatal development.

For these two reasons it is clear that women contribute more to the reproductive process of perpetuating the species than men do. Now here is exactly where I deviate from people calling men the disposable sex. They are under the impression that reproduction and perpetuation of the species and the genome are the same thing. They are not. Perpetuating the genome and the species requires reproduction and survival. As I have mentioned, perpetuating the genome to its fullest extent, requires that an organism survive for a long enough period of time to make full use of it’s reproductive capacity. In other words, reproduction would not happen without survival and survival is meaningless without reproduction. The two go hand in hand, just like men and women.

Furthermore in order to maximise reproductive output, it is best to survive long enough to not just mate once but mate multiple times. The male that died in the process of reproducing just once, did not contribute as much to the gene pool as the male that avoided such inefficient matings, survived longer and mated multiple times on better occasions. Survival instincts are obviously greater than sexual instincts. For those that doubt this, infamous scientific research was done in the Nazi concentration camps on Jewish prisoners with respect to sex. Among the starving Jewish population, men had little or no interest in sex even when it was offered. Men were more interested in food and saving their own lives than sex.

Another set of examples I could provide, would be to encourage the reader (male or female) to think of how high their sex drive was the last time they were ill, tired, hungry or afraid. For both genders, our sex drives plummet and our neurobiology shifts focus to self preservation when our survival is threatened. This makes sense, putting survival before sex means trading one mating opportunity for many more potential mating opportunities in the future. In fact because men do not have a uterus with a nine month gestation period, the opportunity cost of forgoing one mating opportunity is relatively trivial in comparison to missing many more future mating opportunities by dying in the process of reproducing just once. These future mating opportunities are also likely to be more successful, as living conditions will likely be better for the newborn and the chances of infant mortality will be reduced. Reproductive efficiency is maximised when survival instincts trump sexual instincts.

Reproduction is not the most important goal of an organism. Finding the optimum balance between survival and reproduction to maximise reproductive output and replicates of the genome is.


Men Are The Rate Limiting Factor Of Survival

Whilst men lack a uterus, men have substantially greater physical strength than women (in both the upper and lower body). This is a result of muscular hypertrophy due to testosterone. Men are taller, heavier, have more muscle mass even after controlling for body size and weight and have more robust skeletons and ligaments. Men also have a greater level of fitness than women. Men have a faster metabolic rate, greater lung capacity, larger hearts, more red blood cells and haemoglobin. Men also heal more quickly from wounds, our blood clots more quickly and we have a higher peripheral pain tolerance than women. The condition of pregnancy also limits the physical productivity of women even further and reduces their mobility. For these reasons and much more, men are the rate limiting factor of survival.

For most of our evolutionary history, work and providing subsistence for the community was physically demanding and much of it was simply beyond the physical capabilities of women. Thus the amount of men in a community established the “manpower” available to hunt (Due to our large brains and complex development, we require high concentrations of energy and protein in our food. This is why we eat animal matter.), perform physically demanding and dangerous tasks and defend the community against predators and hostile tribes. The physical strengths among men relative to that of women and the condition of pregnancy, are why men contributed more than women to the survival of the species. Women simply lacked the capacity to perform these physically demanding roles to anywhere near the extent men could.


The Division Of Roles In Perpetuating The Species

What has evolved over time, is a division of labour between men and women. Women contribute more to the process of reproduction and are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Men contribute more to the process of survival and are the rate limiting factor of survival. The two genders have historically and arguably up until this day, exchanged their respective contributions with each other. In fact this was historically the basis of marriage. Why the division of labour? Separating the reproductive role from the survival role, or nurturer from provider/protector, maximises efficiency and the perpetuation of the genome and the species.

The roles conflict with each other. The role of providing/protecting diminishes the capacity of an organism to carry out the role of nurturer and vice versa. If a woman with a uterus were to hunt, fight or engage in physically demanding work, then such activities may cause death, serious injury or a physical condition which could inhibit her capacity to perform the reproductive role. Clearly to make the most efficient use of the uterus and to reduce the rate limiting factor of reproduction as much as possible, it is best that the individual carrying the uterus does not perform the survival role. Consequently over time, the two roles of provider and protector and nurturer have become more and more segregated. This segregation has driven the sexual dimorphism we see today and ultimately has its origins in the fact that only one gender has a uterus.


Men And Women Can Cover For Each Other To Some Extent

Now before I go on, some will counter-argue that some women are stronger and fitter than some men. This is of course true, but completely ignores the flip-side of the evolutionary equation. Some men contribute more in a reproductive context to the species than some women. Some women are infertile, some who are fertile are still physiologically predisposed to miscarriage or have a low number of years in which they are fertile and some women give birth to babies of low birth weight and at high risk of infant mortality. Whilst men may not have a uterus, some men can compensate for this by mating with many women and enhancing the utilisation of available wombs! Genghis Khan anyone? It is worth noting that a uterus only has reproductive value if it is supplied with sperm. The benefit some men make to the reproductive output of women, can compensate for those women who unfortunately are not as fertile as most women (My sympathies for those men and women who cannot have children. By no means am I suggesting you are less of a person. This is purely a utilitarian overview of human biology.).

Whilst there are indeed exceptions to the rule. Women on average contribute more to the reproductive role than men and men on average are stronger and fitter than women and contribute more to the survival role. There are substantial differences in the averages. Comparing male and female professional weightlifters, offers such an illustration of the stark strength differences between men and women. Another example out of many I could give is hand grip strength. The average man has a hand grip strength comparable to or greater than a female athlete. No wonder we are always being asked to open jars!


Why Men Are Not Disposable

In order for our primitive ancestors to have passed on the genome to the present population, their communities required men and we still do. If reproduction was the only thing that mattered to producing as many offspring and thus replicates of the genome as possible, then we would expect a sex ratio at birth highly skewed in favour of women. Why not? Women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, therefore the more uteruses available the greater amount of offspring and replicates of the genome can be produced per unit of time.

Clearly communities with say 9 women to 1 man, would have done better than those with 1 man to 1 women. As discussed earlier though, we see a sex ratio at birth of virtually 1:1 (if anything slightly in men’s favour). But why? As discussed, reproduction is not only thing that matters to the perpetuation of genome and the species. Survival plays an equally large role. I have heard a lot of examples cited about the amount of male death in war, the higher incidence of workplace injury among men and the prevalence of men in risky and dangerous work as evidence of male disposability. Yes it is evidence of a society that treats men as utilities, but no it is not biological evidence of male disposability.

Imagine our ancestor’s communities for a minute. Now imagine that in the process of a hunt or fighting off a predator, that half of the men die in the community. That loss of life among men, has just put the whole community under threat of being wiped out. Less men means less people available to do the risky and physically demanding work that was critical to the survival of the community and was simply beyond most women’s capabilities. That especially applies to pregnant women. Losing men meant less people available to fight off predators, defend against hostile tribes, hunt and provide for pregnant women and the majority of less physically capable women. In other words, the loss of male life put the communities continued existence under threat.

The communities that persisted and flourished, were the communities that had the fewest men die in the process of providing and protecting. They were the communities that contributed to the gene pool the most. Those communities were better protected and were provided with greater subsistence, because they had more manpower. They also had more women and thus more uteruses, because more of them could be supported by the male population. Consequently they could produce more children and in combination with greater subsistence, could support a larger population. Furthermore, there was less of a need to replace men that had died. Every time a male provider/protector died, he had to be replaced with another male. This replacement male had to be carried in the womb for 9 months and raised for at least 13-15 years, before he became useful to the community. That was an enormous cost on the community and one that was avoided in communities where men did not die in performing their role.

Perhaps the greatest example I can use to illustrate just how absurd the concept of male disposability is, is with pregnant women. Imagine a pregnant cave women for a minute. Pregnancy is a physical condition that limits mobility and a woman’s ability to undertake physically demanding work. Pregnancy placed women and still places them under increased dependence from others for subsistence. Guess who footed the bill and still does? Men. Men were responsible for keeping women alive while they were pregnant in primitive times. Women are especially vulnerable and dependent on others in the late stages of pregnancy and shortly after childbirth. If a pregnant cavewomen were to lose her man, that could have very well proved a death sentence to both her and the infant. She is in no position to handle a tiger or wolf, build shelter or go out on the ice and hunt seal. Clearly the male in her life was not disposable and in fact her life and that of their infant required him.

The bottom line is that men’s lives are not disposable. Losing men in the process of protecting and providing for the population, came at a cost to the continued survival of the community. This was especially true for pregnant women and would have been selected against during our evolution. Natural selection would have favoured men that did not die in the process of performing their role as provider/protector. Their communities would have contributed more to the gene pool of the next generation.

But it does not end there. The sacrifice that men have made for the continued existence of communities and society, has often been the difference between the rise and fall of civilisation. A dozen primitive women may have owed their lives to a male that killed a predator but died in the process. Obviously the community is worse off without the male, but to suggest that his loss of life had no relevance or little value to the community is absurd. How many male deaths have prevented hundred of thousands of female deaths? As one very independent women said to me, without men we would still be living in huts. Male ingenuity is responsible for the dramatic rise in living standards and the consequential population explosion. Not so disposable are we?


Male Sacrifice And Female Sacrifice

As has been discussed, losing men placed an enormous cost on the community. The communities that thrived and contributed the most to the gene pool, were the ones in which men survived their role of providing and protecting. This is natural selection in action. However, sometimes male sacrifice was unavoidable and men did have to lose their lives to ensure the continued existence of a community. However this is not evidence of men being more disposable than women overall. The context in which they were sacrificing their lives, has to be considered in relation to their role. Male sacrifice is evidence that in the specific role of providing and protecting, men were expected to risk their lives if and only if there was no other option (given the enormous cost of losing them).

What is often ignored by people discussing male sacrifice, is that female sacrifice existed as well. Did women fight on the battlefield (for the most part)? No of course not. So how I do I justify the concept of female sacrifice? Well, the role of providing and protecting is not the only role in perpetuating the species. The role of nurturing is just as important. Again the context in which we discuss sacrifice matters. Women sacrificed their lives in the process of childbirth for tens of thousands of years. Before advances were made in reproductive medicine, pregnancy for women was a potentially lethal condition. Childbirth was a significant cause of death for women and no doubt even more so among our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Not only did women die in childbirth, their lives were also at greater risk during pregnancy. Pregnancy in primitive times would have been a condition that made women more immobile, less physical capable, more dependent on others and a more palatable target for predators. Clearly in the harsh environment of the past, pregnancy would have been a risk to a woman’s life. Even after childbirth, female sacrifice was a reality. Women are instinctually driven to protect their children. We call this maternal instinct. Women have and still do risk their own lives to protect their children.

It is not that female sacrifice does not exist, it is rather that female sacrifice is confined to a different role and evolutionary context to that of men. Yes men do sacrifice their lives in protecting and providing, but women also sacrifice their lives in the role of nurturing. Obviously just like male sacrifice, female sacrifice is an option of last resort and a target for eradication by natural selection. However it does exist as well. Not only is female sacrifice an option of last resort, it also must be appropriate for the female role in reproduction. Clearly it is extremely inefficient for women to die performing the male role. Men are far more physically capable and better adapted to the role of protecting and providing than women. If we sent women off to kill a threatening predator, not only might we lose a considerable amount of them, they also might fail in killing it. Compounding this failure further, would be the loss of uteruses available to reproduce the population and replace them. Now if we sent men off to kill a threatening predator, we would lose considerably less people in the process, probably kill the predator and not lose any uteruses in the process.

Clearly if men have to die, it makes sense for them to die doing the task they are suited to performing and clearly if women have to die, it makes sense for them to die doing the task they were suited to performing. This is why male and female roles were segregated for most of our history. It was literally the difference between a community surviving or being wiped out. We did not have the luxury of living in a society where we share the gender roles like we do today. Technology has liberated men and women from their traditional roles (yet feminism only focuses on liberating women). However we must remain wary that we have evolved psychological predispositions, but more on that later in this hub.


The Burning Building

I have often heard of this scenario being discussed about a man and women in building and who you would save. Apparently many people (both men and women), will save the woman first. This is not evidence that men are the disposable sex. We are predisposed to saving the woman first in that situation, because we rightfully perceive the woman as the physically more vulnerable individual and clearly in the greatest physical danger. If we devoted our efforts to saving the man over the woman, there is a greater likelihood that we will come out with only one person alive. If we devoted our efforts to saving the woman instead, there is a greater likelihood that both lives may be saved. Due to his greater physical strength and fitness, the man is less vulnerable in that situation and more likely to be able to save himself than the woman, or more likely to survive long enough for the rescuers to come back to get him after they have saved the woman. The optimum strategy from an evolutionary perspective, is to focus attention on saving the woman. This is not because she is more valuable, but because she is more vulnerable and in need of assistance.

Let’s change the scenario for a moment to see how this pans out. This time there is a young 4 year old boy in the burning building and a 32 year old woman. Now who do people save? I guarantee you, that people will attempt to save the boy over the woman. I would even suggest that the woman in the burning building, would be screaming for the authorities to get the boy out of the building first. If femininity was the causal factor in the decision on who to save, then we would happily leave the boy in the burning building. We don’t. Femininity is not the causal factor, perceived vulnerability is instead the trigger. We see that the more vulnerable party is time and time again, given the highest priority in rescue operations. If we focus on the woman over the boy, we are more likely to walk out with one person alive and if we focus on the boy over the woman, we are more likely to walk out with both alive. Saving the more vulnerable party first, is the optimum strategy for perpetuating the genome and the species. This ensures the diversity of the genome is preserved and not lost. Remember that natural selective forces work on the genome and that the only reason our genes are in existence today, is because they preserved themselves from extinction.

What was the rescue policy on the Titanic? Women and children first. I can assure you that children have been and still are placed above both women and men when it comes to help, aid or support from society. Maternal instinct is direct proof of women putting children regardless of gender, before their own lives.


Male Disposability And Technology

Some people will read this hub and conclude that the male role that evolved in the perpetuation of the species and the genome is no longer relevant in the modern age and therefore men are disposable. This is based on the rationale that technology through automation, has largely removed physical labour from society and therefore the need for male provision and protection. Whilst this rationale is valid, it is also true that technology has removed the rate limiting factor of reproduction and can replace the female uterus. We have 7 billion people on the planet! The biological female reproductive role is just as redundant as the biological male survival role. With so many people, reproduction is much less important today than it was in the past. Of course we still need some level of reproduction. However even then we can replace the female uterus with artificial uteri (research has been highly promising). So while we can replace male strength with automation, we will inevitably be able to replace the female womb with artificial uteri as well. Both traditional gender roles can be made irrelevant with technology. The second point worth making, is this argument assumes we value human life in utilitarian terms. Clearly any civilised community or society does not do this. Even if we remove the traditional gender roles, neither gender is suddenly disposable. Their human life has value far beyond simplistic utilitarian biological roles.

Another question to ask is whether technology has made the role of provider and protector redundant at all. We are assuming physical strength is the only male adaptation to the role of provider and protector. Men have also evolved psychological aptitudes to perform their role. Despite decades of affirmative action and feminism, men still dominate engineering, computer science, the physical sciences, mathematics, architecture and information technology (and there is more). Men also still make up the bulk of pilots, electricians, mechanics, specialist technicians, plumbers, police, builders, military, fire-fighters and tradesmen etcetera. These patterns are as true today as they were 40 years ago. Men excel in these fields and appear to be naturally suited to them. The other thing worth considering, is that the technology women and society in general depend on today for their own self provision, is still mostly designed, built and maintained by men. Our entire infrastructure, police force, military and fire brigade is still mostly run and maintained by men. So I would be cautious in calling the male provider and protector role redundant and men disposable. The obvious counterargument is that women can do all of these roles. Yes they mostly can, although some roles performed by men are just too physically demanding for women and can't be done by the female sex to the level required. Men can also do all of the female roles, including parenting an infant. The only role men can’t perform is pregnancy. However as has been mentioned, pregnancy can be replaced with artificial uteri and women require men to get pregnant anyway.

Technology has given some women the illusion men are no longer needed. In reality technology is merely just an extension of mostly male productivity and ingenuity. In fact the more reliant we become on technology, the more dependent we become on industries and fields dominated by men (STEM occupations, Silicon Valley etcetera). Men are far from disposable.


Radical Feminists Discuss Eugenics, Torture, Infanticide And Genocide Against Men

The Inconvenient Truth Feminists Suppress On Domestic Violence

Feminist Control Of The Canadian Government, Suppression Of Information And Neglect Of Male Domestic Violence Victims

Male Disposability And Our Culture

It is our culture that treats men as disposable and is maladaptive and not our biology. This is a direct result of decades of social engineering implemented by unchecked radicalism in the feminist movement. They have lobbied and influenced our governments and media with impunity for decades. They have manipulated our legal system, education system, political system and media and have distorted public perception and behaviour toward men. A gynocentric culture of misandry has emerged and men are indeed treated as disposable utilities.

Men are stripped of fatherhood in family courts and treated as little more than wage slaves in divorce settlement. Domestic violence against men is consistently ignored and information about it is systematically suppressed. Men have no reproductive rights to speak of and the draft is still for men and men only. The boy crisis in education continues to get worse, but no serious action is being taken to address the problem. Instead we still have female only scholarships, other affirmative action programs for women in universities and schools and women’s departments, societies and support programs at our universities. This is despite women clearly outperforming men in every level of education and making up the overwhelming majority of students at our universities. Perhaps nothing demonstrates male disposability in our modern culture more than the gender disparity in youth suicide among young men and women. Men’s rights in Western society has been placed dead last and ignored on virtually every occasion and area one could imagine, for at least the last 30 years.

As I have explained in this hub, from a biological perspective men are not disposable. It is our culture and not our biology that is at fault here. However that is not to suggest biology does not play a role in the problem. Feminists identified early on, that humans have evolved an instinctual predisposition to view women as the more vulnerable gender (not more valuable, see my section on the burning building earlier in this hub). We evolved this predisposition because women are substantially physically more vulnerable than men. The primitive environment we evolved in was littered with physical dangers and thus it was essential to protect women first. So we naturally evolved a protective tendency toward women. This is partly the reason why women evolved a neotenous appearance, high pitched vocal cords, more active tear ducts and so on and so on, to accentuate their vulnerability.

Feminism uses our instinctual predisposition to view women as the more vulnerable gender, to manipulate the public perception on gender inequality. This is why domestic violence and rape culture are at the heart of feminist propaganda. It portrays women as victims of male oppressors and plays on our instincts to view women as the more vulnerable gender and preferentially respond to their duress. It arouses our emotions and impairs our critical thinking. The victim narrative is the key manipulative tool of feminism. With it they have moulded the cognitive map of society with respect to gender inequality and polarised sexism as a female only problem in the public psyche. They have used this tool to change our culture, by framing women as perpetual victims and portraying men as some privileged upper class and as villains. They have us well trained. Politicians and media respond to feminist cries of victimhood, like a dog to a bone. Meanwhile they completely ignore the social problems of men who they falsely perceive as "privileged", or worse tread on men's rights because they see men as "villains" oppressing women.

How have ideologues and bigots within the feminist movement managed to get away with this mass manipulation? Their control over the flow of information that reaches the public through media and government has been crucial. For instance, we never hear about the ocean of social research on domestic violence that demonstrates that a large number of victims are actually male and perpetrators are female. Instead we hear the statistics that they want us to hear. These are often based on studies with bogus methodologies or simply have no basis to them at all. The internet has now removed their capacity to censor or distort information and gradually people are starting to wake up to the fact they are being lied to and manipulated. Furthermore, the everyday realities of life are becoming more and more distant from feminist rhetoric. People are starting to question female vulnerability and whether women really are oppressed and men are privileged in the way feminists claim.

Another reason for the success of this form of mass manipulation, is the ease with which they can socially ostracise people that speak out for men’s rights or simply attempt to undercover the truth. If you convince people that women are victims, which we are predisposed to doing, then anyone who questions that narrative can be easily painted as a bully. Group psychology and trial by media will do the rest and no one will bat an eyelid. Unless of course they think critically. However as discussed, critical thought becomes somewhat suppressed when people see women as victims and get emotional.

Last but not least, the banner of gender equality is the perfect cover bigots and hypocrites have in the feminist movement, to mask the imposition of their bias and double standards on men in society. They pretend they are advocating for gender equality, while they manipulate the legal and political system against men. One example out of many I could give, is their push to ensure the law requires mutual consent for paternal DNA testing in child support cases in Australia. So if you are an Australian man (as I am) and you don’t want to pay child support to a kid that is not your own, then tough luck!

Males are treated as disposable because of the mass emotional manipulation of the public with the female victim narrative by the feminist movement. A social revolution is already underway. People are taking a stand against male disposability and this man-hating gynocentric culture. It won’t last because men make up half the population and what affects men will inevitably affect women. Double digit unemployment, mass strikes, huge crime waves and eventually riots and social collapse await us if we continue to do nothing.

I have discussed how our instinctual predisposition of vulnerability and gender is dysfunctional in our modern society in contrast to our prehistoric environment, why men's issues are ignored and what we can do about it, in this article which I encourage people to read.


Click to Rate This Article