Feminism and "male disposability."

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Feminism and "male disposability."

I've been caught up in a feminism inquiry binge.  Although I am of course for equal rights for all human beings (which where I come from is the long since established), and for the record I absolutely adore women and believe they on an individual basis are capable of anything a man is (well, maybe not bench pressing 900lbs but you know what I mean), but I have found most of the arguments and statements made by many "feminists" not only irrational, but just plain ludicrous and sometimes even harmful to their own cause.  Arguments like the “wage gap argument” or the “less women in political positions argument” or the “less women in science and math argument” and the old “less women at the top argument…” I find clearly irrational and fallacious and I can demonstrate how they are.  But instead of doing that (as I find it all obvious and almost pointless and tedious to do so) I would like to address "male disposability," something I have found when asked, "feminists" have not very much at all to say about and have no intention of changing, which I find says allot.  Male disposability, has been around since the dawn of time, and has been an intrical part of our success as a species through our more primitive past.  Male disposability is the understanding as a group/society that the life of a women is intrinsically more valuable than a mans.  This of course is true when looking at the survival of a species.  If the population of a given group is reduced to 100 men and 1 woman, the future looks bleak.  But if a population is reduced to 1 (very happy) man and 100 women, the repopulation process will be much quicker and more successful. Although this makes perfect sense, today with a healthy population of 7 billion, the reason for male disposability becomes more questionable.

Male disposability is clearly demonstrable in societies today all over the world, when it comes to the life of a man vs a woman, the woman is chosen every time, and this is not only excepted but is the honorable thing by men to do.  When a ship begins to sink, it is accepted that women after children fill the lifeboats first, adult men come DEAD LAST every time in every such a scenario.    It is accepted that if a fireman is faced with a choice between saving a man or a woman from a burning building, the choice MUST be the women.  The other man in this scenario MUST except his fate and not protest as he has been raised and conditioned to do so, and to do so is honorable, it is THE THING to do. 

And so a question to “feminists” if we have any here, is with a fantastically healthy population of 7 billion, why exactly is male disposability still a factor in societies worldwide?  Why exactly is a man taught to simply except this fact, that if someone has a choice between saving a woman or man it is not only excepted that it is the women every time, but if a man deviates from this “agreement,” he is called a coward, a pussy, not a real man and shunned by others.  Keep in mind I for some reason in some strange way agree with male disposability even though I know it (in a healthy population) is quite irrational, I guess I as most men were raised to not only except this fact, but also find it honorable to do so.  I, the man caught in a burning building would say to the fireman… “NO!!! save that girl first.”  Most of us would do the same, but why?  Please attempt to articulate...  Why isn’t it that feminists are advocating an abolishment to this agreement in most societies in the name of equality?
 

 


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think if any man said

I think if any man said "Save the woman first" it would be just because of honor. Not just because they are committing a selfless act. If it were truly selfless, it wouldn't matter if the other person was male or female. They would probably act differently if there were no witnesses. And I think you'd be surprised how natural instinct can take over in panic situations. Me and another guy were working on a very high and steep roof. One wrong move and you're dead. Our roof jacks popped loose. No time to think. He was in a place to be able to grab onto another safety hold and he did. He had a choice to give me his free hand or use it to save himself. He saved himself and I started my death slide down the roof. I managed to catch my foot on a chimney. When faced with burning in flames most peoples reaction would be the same.

And feminists won't abolish the chivalry agreement because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They would lose alot of the little perks.

I saw a funny pic the other day. A homely looking feminist holding a sign next to the girls at Hooters saying "women aren't decorations". The caption said "sexism-only ugly bitches complain about it".

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote: I think

tonyjeffers wrote:

I think if any man said "Save the woman first" it would be just because of honor. Not just because they are committing a selfless act. If it were truly selfless, it wouldn't matter if the other person was male or female. They would probably act differently if there were no witnesses. And I think you'd be surprised how natural instinct can take over in panic situations. Me and another guy were working on a very high and steep roof. One wrong move and you're dead. Our roof jacks popped loose. No time to think. He was in a place to be able to grab onto another safety hold and he did. He had a choice to give me his free hand or use it to save himself. He saved himself and I started my death slide down the roof. I managed to catch my foot on a chimney. When faced with burning in flames most peoples reaction would be the same.


I said most men would do the same, not all, and this refers not to exactly what they would do in a survival situation, but more so to what they are expected to do, perhaps I should have made that more clear.  The point is, if a man chooses to breech this agreement (which he is free to do) he is labeled a coward and shunned by society, where as women expect this right to the life boat over men, and if everything goes according to the agreement, the women is not labeled a coward.  And my question is why?  Why in such a situation is a woman’s life viewed as more valuable?  Biologically/culturally... I get it, but rationally/logically I don't.


tonyjeffers wrote:

And feminists won't abolish the chivalry agreement because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They would lose allot of the little perks.

Agreed.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

I think if any man said "Save the woman first" it would be just because of honor. Not just because they are committing a selfless act. If it were truly selfless, it wouldn't matter if the other person was male or female. They would probably act differently if there were no witnesses. And I think you'd be surprised how natural instinct can take over in panic situations. Me and another guy were working on a very high and steep roof. One wrong move and you're dead. Our roof jacks popped loose. No time to think. He was in a place to be able to grab onto another safety hold and he did. He had a choice to give me his free hand or use it to save himself. He saved himself and I started my death slide down the roof. I managed to catch my foot on a chimney. When faced with burning in flames most peoples reaction would be the same.


I said most men would do the same, not all, and this refers not to exactly what they would do in a survival situation, but more so to what they are expected to do, perhaps I should have made that more clear.  The point is, if a man chooses to breech this agreement (which he is free to do) he is labeled a coward and shunned by society, where as women expect this right to the life boat over men, and if everything goes according to the agreement, the women is not labeled a coward.  And my question is why?  Why in such a situation is a woman’s life viewed as more valuable?  Biologically/culturally... I get it, but rationally/logically I don't.


tonyjeffers wrote:

And feminists won't abolish the chivalry agreement because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They would lose allot of the little perks.

Agreed.

I wouldn't say that it is rational/logical. But I think i get why the woman wouldn't be viewed as a coward. They're not expected to be as brave as men, except in a hardcore feminist's eyes, and us men have to keep our big male ego. But I guarantee you the same feminists would have their ass in that lifeboat in a second. Some cultures see us as men who bow down to their women like dogs. Good luck trying to figure out the great mystery of what really goes on in a woman's head. I quote a Jack Nicholson movie line- woman: "How do you write women so well?" Jack "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability"


 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia