The myth of male disposability

[SandMax]

For the maths of reproduction, look no further than stud farms

But we are not stud farms.

Please, read and try to understand my logical reasoning why men are not more expendable than women in our society.

[Mihalik]

Precisely, but thats not how we work reproduction wise. You are assuming, that 1 guy is making multiple women pregnant at the same time. Such almoust never happen in real life. If 1 guy has kids with more than one women (in forms of new marriages etc), usually they atleast wait until the first has came out.

You are alternating between the Social meaning of Male Disposability and the Biological meaning of it. Make up your mind.

The scenario you described is PURELY biological. The social reasons are different debate to be had. But if the reasons are social we would still see a population crash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missin...the_phenomenon

[SandMax]

You are alternating between the Social meaning of Male Disposability and the Biological meaning of it. Make up your mind.

The scenario you described is PURELY biological. The social reasons are different debate to be had. But if the reasons are social we would still see a population crash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missin...the_phenomenon

As I said, in theory 1 man could do alot of women but thats not the case in practise. Thus men are not that much more expendable than women when it comes to actual reproduction.

If we lost alot of men, there would be pairless women. If we lost alot of women, there would be lots of pairless guys. In any case, there are lots of people not contributing to birth of new people.

[Mihalik]

Its funny but in India and China, female human babies used to be killed by the parents.

Now you have a situation in China where there are more Males than females

Again, he seems to keep jumping from Social and Biological. Social engineering of the sort has all sorts of weird negative effects.

- - - Updated - - -

If we lost alot of men, there would be pairless women. If we lost alot of women, there would be lots of pairless guys. In any case, there are lots of people not contributing to birth of new people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent#Primary_caregiver

Single parenthood is common. Most single parents are women. Family, friends and most importantly the state pick up part of the slack, through things like Public Schools and Daycares and such.

[SandMax]

Again, he seems to keep jumping from Social and Biological. Social engineering of the sort has all sorts of weird negative effects.

- - - Updated - - -



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single...mary_caregiver

Single parenthood is common. Most single parents are women. Family, friends and most importantly the state pick up part of the slack, through things like Public Schools and Daycares and such.

As I said, this does not translate men being expendable since usually if guy has kids with two different women, they almoust never make the kids at the same time.

As long as men are not "effective sperminators", women are not in the role of bottleneck any more than men. (well women could by very slight margin be a bottleneck).

[Mihalik]

As I said, this does not translate men being expendable since usually if guy has kids with two different women, they almoust never make the kids at the same time.

As long as men are not "effective sperminators", women are not in the role of bottleneck any more than men. (well women could by very slight margin be a bottleneck).

Dude you are dense.

Both biological, social and historical statistical evidence shows that men are expendable.

Your argument is literally. -Nah Uh. 'Cuz I say so.

[SandMax]

Dude you are dense.

Both biological, social and historical statistical evidence shows that men are expendable.

Your argument is literally. -Nah Uh. 'Cuz I say so.

The statistical "evidence" you linked about baby boomers, had nothing to with 1 guy sleeping around multiple women. Also you are very ignorant how todays society works out regarding reproduction, you are dense here.

[Mihalik]

The statistical "evidence" you linked about baby boomers, had nothing to with 1 guy sleeping around multiple women. Also you are very ignorant how todays society works out regarding reproduction, you are dense here.

So you decide to ignore both the phenomenon in China and the issue of single parenthood. Mkay.

[nextormento]

Women risk dying during childbirth; men risk death during war
One risk arises through biology, the other through society.

Men risking death is the social attempt at having women be safer.
Today we see evidence of this effect in males taking the most hazardous professions. The outliers
Males are made socially disposable independently of biological bottlenecks.

OP has no idea what they're talking about.

[SandMax]

So you decide to ignore both the phenomenon in China and the issue of single parenthood. Mkay.

I think you must be very slow.

[Bodakane]

The mental gymnastics that are required to say men get the short end of the stick in today's society is fucking staggering.

[Alydael]

Ive seen this thing thrown out alot and people seem to actually believe in it, especially in conscription discussions. People think we can sacrifise alot of men, but not alot of women, if we wanted to continue the society after crisis.

Fact is, that if we happened to lose lots of men for any reason (natural disasters, diseases, war), the effect on birth rates would be very similar if we lost alot of women instead.

You are participating in "conscription discussions?" We have drones, robots, missles, UAV, etc. When do you imagine there is going to be a "conscription."

[Allybeboba]

All about hookup culture. One woman for the rest of your life is a bad idea.


I cannot stand feminists.

Kek...
I have been married for nearly 30 years, my parents almost 60, both of my grandparents over 60.
Explain how it is a "bad idea".

[Mihalik]

The mental gymnastics that are required to say men get the short end of the stick in today's society is fucking staggering.

The thread is very muddled.

We are talking about an evolutionary phenomenon, but OP keeps doing some weird -I believe (what he believes means jack shit)- dance around the thread.

But the issue here is that if you say "men getting the short end of the stick" you treat the group as a monolith, as in if ALL MEN have the same opportunities and the same outcomes, ignoring things like Socio Economic conditions, Sexual Orientation, Race, nationality, mental health, professional background and so on.

The reality is more nuanced. In reality men make up both the dredges and movers and shakers of society to a greater extent than women do. With other words, men just fall into both extremes, but we seem to ignore the men who do get the short end of the stick, because some other men are doing very well.

[Blobfish]

The mental gymnastics that are required to say men get the short end of the stick in today's society is fucking staggering.

The West these days is more Politically Correct & left orientated than Communist Russia was.

[Deleted]

The reality is more nuanced. In reality men make up both the dredges and movers and shakers of society to a greater extent than women do. With other words, men just fall into both extremes, but we seem to ignore the men who do get the short end of the stick, because some other men are doing very well.

Pretty much this

Men do get the short end of the stick: because of this disparity of the extremes, men are not given the social protections that women have, and have always had in so-called "patriarchal society" - which is itself a rather silly myth

You see this most notably in the homeless, prison populations, unsafe working conditions, wars, jobs at the bottom/unpleasant end, disease funding (prostate vs breast for example) and social welfare programs - as well as the myriad forms of positive discrimination women get

There's this little handy graphic that perfectly illustrates the different ways society treats men and women:

[Deleted]

Pretty sure this will get closed because gender threads aren't allowed but ....

It's a discussion about the sexes not gender though.

[Blobfish]

The Awesome New Zealand S.A.S The one percenters

Just like the World Champion NZ All Blacks Rugby Team , these guys are very good.

[Bodakane]

The thread is very muddled.

We are talking about an evolutionary phenomenon, but OP keeps doing some weird -I believe (what he believes means jack shit)- dance around the thread.

But the issue here is that if you say "men getting the short end of the stick" you treat the group as a monolith, as in if ALL MEN have the same opportunities and the same outcomes, ignoring things like Socio Economic conditions, Sexual Orientation, Race, nationality, mental health, professional background and so on.

The reality is more nuanced. In reality men make up both the dredges and movers and shakers of society to a greater extent than women do. With other words, men just fall into both extremes, but we seem to ignore the men who do get the short end of the stick, because some other men are doing very well.

Of course there's context.

What isn't happening is that men that are down their luck are cast aside because they are men.

For men to be discriminated against, they have to be something else besides male. They have to be gay, or a color other than white, or different religion, etc.

Women, OTOH, get all of those same discriminations PLUS the discrimination of their gender. Men have done a very good job of branding women as sex objects throughout history, on top of all that.

I got a vasectomy in 15 minutes. I had nothing to answer for other than the typical medical questionnaire. My wife, however, can't find a doctor in our area to do a tubal because she's never had children and they don't think that's right. From the pay shortfalls, to every article you see of famous women being not about their accomplishments but rather about their fuckability, to forced female circumcision, to the horrific rape statistics...men (as a gender) have literally no room to bitch.

[SandMax]

I understand how that I should have used different name of the topic since it muddled the discussion alot.

But try to understand, if you can agree with the notion that in our western society atleast, men usually does not impregnate more than one woman at a time (meaning he atleast waits until the first has come out), you will agree with the rest of the argument. Men of today are not Genghis Khans (who single handedly breeded countless women).

As long as men breed with one woman at a time, the "value" of either sex in reproduction is 1:1. Of course its not perfect 1:1 in reality, but its very close to it. Hence we cant say that we could lose more men than women in war for an example. Losing any sex has similar negative effect that has to be overcome by similar governmental intervetions like family policies supporting big families.