Confused about the "Male Disposability" talk

[MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To GiveParticipant 6635]

Im trying to understand how some can draw a conclusion that men are disposable.The average female lifespan is 81,let’s just say a female is born,she is worthless until she turns 15/16 and starts to develop and get male attention,but this only runs until she’s 30 which is a approximately a 15 year run. On a grand scale they are worthless for 66 years out of 81. A man/boy gains worth once he’s abled bodied (cut the lawn,kill bugs,Steve Jobs) and this lasts in some cases his whole life. From the time a man starts dating until he die’s (if he’s still successful) the world is his oyster. Yes in his 20’s its difficult to get a scale 10 slut but he can still hold worth in his personal life as well as a laborer.What im trying to say here is that biology dictates who is disposable and from what I see its women.Without men being so sacrificial, too much pride,social conditioning,doctrines etc they have nothing. But on a biological scale women are used to crank out babies and die. Time is their enemy as men get better with time,if we can just stop jumping in front of bullets to save women this can be seen clear as day. I know im all over the place with this post but im hoping you guys get the jist of it and chime in on what’s your opinion of this male disposability talk and give some clarity.

Never lose sight of what brought you here.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Sperm is unlimitedly plentiful and cheap. Ova are limited and expensive. A collection of ten men and ten women can afford to lose nine of those men and can still produce ten babies in nine months. If instead the same group were to lose nine women and keep all ten men, that group would only be able to produce one baby in nine months.

That is the source of male disposability.

[HitmanParticipant]

I get where your going with this. .social conditioning of males turns us into the white knights and manginas. .
We here have come to reject this conditioning and have gone our own way. .
The 15 to 20 years of child bearing used to make women less disposable. .
Not necessary anymore.
Technology and supposed equality should fix the issue. .may take a long time though. .my 2 cents…

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

It seems like feminists like to think that they are more valuable than men.

“It’s ok for men to go off to war and die to protect women.”

“It’s ok for men to work, labor, and sacrifice for women.”

“…because we’re worth it”

Their golden vaginas are overrated.
Women would have zero babies were it not for men. Children need fathers as well as mothers.
Women need men. I sometimes get p~~~ed off when I hear women claim they are more valuable than men simply because they can have babies.
Enjoy being alone ladies. When trouble comes, see how far you go without a man by your side.

[MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To GiveParticipant 6635]

sidecar wrote:

Sperm is unlimitedly plentiful and cheap. Ova are limited and expensive. A collection of ten men and ten women can afford to lose nine of those men and can still produce ten babies in nine months. If instead the same group were to lose nine women and keep all ten men, that group would only be able to produce one baby in nine months.

That is the source of male disposability.

So basically the disposability is more about reproduction than all this society talk? Your post makes a lot of sense when thinking of it as mammals,never thought of it that way.

Never lose sight of what brought you here.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To Give wrote:

So basically the disposability is more about reproduction than all this society talk?

Pretty much. And species (and societies) that don’t optimize for reproduction rapidly get pushed aside into extinction by societies that do. It all boils down to our basic biology, but then so do most things.

Society comes into it in that society is a consequence of male disposability. Society is not the cause of it, it’s an effect. Basically, when an individual man is not necessary to the survival of the species (or the society), that individual man is also free to take risks without unduly risking the survival of the species (or society). He is free to experiment and explore and create. If he fails, well then his failure only really affects him. But if he succeeds, well that’s how we get things like light bulbs and steam engines and newly discovered continents and all the many wonderful things upon which civilization depends.

In a just society, the individual men taking those risks are individually rewarded for their courage and effort. Feminism is the belief that women should equally share in the rewards of male risk, but without equal female risk or effort. It’s not hard to see how a feminist society is utterly unjust, and also doomed inevitably to fail. Because when men are not rewarded for their risk and effort, and are instead just viewed as disposable utilities with the unrewarded risk and effort still demanded of them regardless by selfish women, men stop taking the risks and stop making the effort. And then civilization collapses.

And no, women will not take up the slack when men walk away. Because our biology means women are not disposable. So women are not free to take risks. And they don’t want to regardless.

But that is not our problem.

[MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To GiveParticipant 6635]

sidecar wrote:

And no, women will not take up the slack when men walk away. Because our biology means women are not disposable. So women are not free to take risks. And they don’t want to regardless.

And because of that the MRM/MRA is pretty much dead in its tracks because no matter what men are biologically wired to protect women because of reproductive purposes (the Uterus is worth more than sperm). So in a since MGTOW men is more about overcoming biological duties to not be disposable or enslaved to the dangers of reproduction. So as soon as a male comes out the wound his task is already selected for him,damn this sucks man!

Never lose sight of what brought you here.

[Solo MAN’S WisdomParticipant]

There’s, also, a relationship between how women find men attractive and their disposability. Women only find about 20% of the men attractive [i.e. The Alphas], because they think with a herd/hive/harem mentality. In their minds, that leaves 80% of men as “disposable.”

Have I mentioned women are deeply disturbed.

When women lead, destruction is the destination. -- Me.

[Tiga KParticipant 1693]

Society does not respect men as individuals. We are just utilities. We are expected to risk our lives in war, provide for a family, and work work work. They may try to shame us as selfish man-children, but truth is that they are selfish. I have the right to pursue my own happiness, and anyone who feels entitled to dictating how I’m supposed to live my life is the selfish one.

I’d say tradcons are the worst. They view both men and women as just family producing units.

[TuneoutParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Sperm is unlimitedly plentiful and cheap. Ova are limited and expensive. A collection of ten men and ten women can afford to lose nine of those men and can still produce ten babies in nine months. If instead the same group were to lose nine women and keep all ten men, that group would only be able to produce one baby in nine months.

That is the source of male disposability.

This theory works when applied to history,in times when the human population was sparse and childbirth was dangerous.

Now the world is over populated and medical science has made birthing quite safe and extended life expectancy.

Yet we still hold on to this outdated notion-not logical.

Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!

[narwhalParticipant]

Usefulness is a matter of perspective. You can’t answer whether a person is disposable without first defining ‘to whom?’. Are men disposable to other men? Are men disposable to women? Are men disposable to society as a whole? Are men disposable to their own children?

It looks like OP was looking at the question with ‘to whom’ being society at large. Your analysis isn’t wrong, it’s just incomplete. Besides the already mentioned biology, feminism and the government has designed the laws to make men more disposable then women. A woman no longer needs a man to hang around since any many who impregnates her is forced to provide for her against his will, with government aid as a backup. This is completely artificial, but the system stays in place because there are enough women and manginas in place to support it.

Just to add, men are not disposable to their children, unless the mother/government has forced the child to adapt without. Men typically are not disposable to other men. Obviously men and children that have absolutely no relation to another man are disposable on some level. Women are typically not disposable to men since he typically values the fantasy of companionship and to reproduce. However, once he gives up the fantasy and the desire to reporduce, women quickly become disposable.

Ok. Then do it.

[AttonParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Sperm is unlimitedly plentiful and cheap. Ova are limited and expensive. A collection of ten men and ten women can afford to lose nine of those men and can still produce ten babies in nine months. If instead the same group were to lose nine women and keep all ten men, that group would only be able to produce one baby in nine months.

That is the source of male disposability.

A clear and commonsense reason as to why something happens. Something feminsts are incapable of funny that is.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To GiveParticipant 6635]

narwhal wrote:

Women are typically not disposable to men since he typically values the fantasy of companionship and to reproduce. However, once he gives up the fantasy and the desire to reporduce, women quickly become disposable.

This^^^ is what im more or less battling with. The ones that are disposable could be circumstantial like a man with red pill philosophy is not sacrificial to women as a tradcon is,so women are disposable to a MGTOW minded man. The majority of men are white knights which in a general outlook groups all men disposable. You would think with the abundance of safe childbirth that we could evolve pass this instinct,why are we still sitting on this rock?

Never lose sight of what brought you here.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To Give wrote:

And because of that the MRM/MRA is pretty much dead in its tracks because no matter what men are biologically wired to protect women

Not precisely. Men are hardwired to protect their women in order to protect their genes in their children.

Once you take that away from men, once women start pretending they are “strong and independent and don’t need no man”, men stop giving a f~~~. Feminism is the belief then men should be forced to give a f~~~ regardless. Good luck with that, laydeez.

MRA’s fail because they still have f~~~s to give. They are under the delusion that women are somehow still “theirs” and if only they plead nicely enough they can get them back. They beg for something in return for their ongoing sacrifice in the name of the indisposable womb. MGTOW know that’s a bridge already burned, and there’s no going back. So MGTOW don’t make sacrifices for women any more.

But that is not our problem.

Tuneout wrote:

This theory works when applied to history,in times when the human population was sparse and childbirth was dangerous.

Our genes evolved to meet past conditions, not present ones.

Now the world is over populated and medical science has made birthing quite safe and extended life expectancy.

Which was only made possible by men being able to experiment and explore, and they are only free to do so thanks to their disposability. If we spent the last ten thousand years under the feminist imposed social paradigm, we’d still be living in huts made of straw and cow s~~~.

Yet we still hold on to this outdated notion-not logical.

On the contrary, it’s still valid today. Men are still disposable. With overpopulation it’s women who are getting the short end of the stick, because with seven odd billion people on the planet, women have become disposable as well. And they are NOT evolved to handle that well. Not at all.

The other parts of male disposability also still hold true. Cultures that refuse to reward male effort and risk and sacrifice (made possible by male disposability) still inevitably fail, like always. We are watching it happen right now.

[Silverstone the SecondParticipant]

The idea of male disposability is this. Men are expected to die for women whether that’s doing dangerous work, dying in war, and so on. Biology dictates this. If you have 50 men and 50 women in a village and there’s a conflict, it’s up to the men to solve this. That way, if 49 of those 50 men die, then the village can still live on. One man can impregnate the 50 women and continue the cycle. If 49 of the women die fighting in a war, then there’s 50 men and one woman. She can only produce 1 child. So society and civilization has grown around this concept. Civilization depends on men throwing their lives away for the good of everyone else.

But when women get uppity, like their life is so bad, then men stop caring. Women who have been the most privileged class of people ever have it better than ever and still complain and still take priority over men. This is what men mean by “male disposability”

Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Silverstone the Second wrote:

The idea of male disposability is this. Men are expected to die for women whether that’s doing dangerous work, dying in war, and so on.

That’s the modern, feminist take on it, which fails utterly as a social system (as we are seeing).

The truth is more simple. Men, thanks to biology, are simply free to be disposable. They are available to take risks and sacrifice themselves for the good of the whole, BUT ONLY IF THEY, THEMSELVES, SO CHOOSE. And in just, functional societies men have been honored and rewarded for their choice to take risks and sacrifice. They get personal incentives for doing so.

But feminist societies (whether they call themselves that or not) deny men the incentives, believing it is women who should be rewarded for men’s efforts. They don’t reward or honor male sacrifice, they expect it. They demand it. They insist upon it. They legislate it. And then they wonder why men choose not to sacrifice themselves and instead walk the f~~~ away.

And without men working and taking risks and sacrificing themselves to support those societies, they inevitably fail.

But that is not our problem.

[FullMetalExoParticipant 2383]

Tuneout wrote:

…extended life expectancy.

Yet we still hold on to this outdated notion-not logical.

That’s complete bull…(well, dunno about other places) for instance:

Here in Latvia on average men live 14 years less then women and -1 year short of even starting to receive a f~~~ing pension. Isn’t that nice ! We work till we are dead and we die before we even get a chance to retire at 62 years old.

…and soon we will have pension on …63 years. So even more MAN who will never receive a full pension in my country. Great. More then a HALF OF MEN who will never receive our money from our outstanding government, back. While women receive the pension ($$$$$$) for 13 years on average.

Seems like It would be only fair If we could retire at 50 years old and not 62.

PS. The only way to increase my life expectancy is less stress, sports, eating less junk and better food and going my own way, overall. One good thing if I work as “Paramedic”, I will be able to retire at age 55 and start receiving my pension.

And society, one way or another is built around our biology/chemicals/DNA. Always was and until we all change our lifeforms to non-human, always will be. Doesn’t mean that some things shouldn’t change in our society of course (and technology got influence), or that people should choose for themselves.

-----------

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

sidecar wrote:

But feminist societies (whether they call themselves that or not) deny men the incentives, believing it is women who should be rewarded for men’s efforts. They don’t reward or honor male sacrifice, they expect it. They demand it. They insist upon it. They legislate it. And then they wonder why men choose not to sacrifice themselves and instead walk the f~~~ away.

This is awesomely put.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

I agree with the disposability argument. But the only problem I see is that men are not completely disposable.

Suppose we take away the innovation part and consider that a civilization can stil thrive without men needing to inven and discover. Suppose that there are 50 men and 50 women. Obviously, like Mr. Silverstione said, 49 men are disposable.

But you still need the 50th man.

TFM has explained this in a very detailed way:

The only thing I don’t agree with him is the fact that he thinks male scarcity is a thing of the future when artificial wombs wil be invented…..whereas I believe with the advent of MGTOWism, civilization is already taking its stride to male scarcity..

because, for a woman, a mgtow is equivalent to a dead man….and dead men cannot help them fertilize their eggs.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Varun wrote:

I agree with the disposability argument. But the only problem I see is that men are not completely disposable.

An individual man is disposable, at least as far as the species is concerned. Men are not, especially as far as civilization is concerned. Men, as our feminists society is finding out the hard way, are indispensable. And when women steal away the incentives for the individual man, men as a whole start to walk the f~~~ away.

Suppose we take away the innovation part and consider that a civilization can still thrive without men needing to invent and discover.

You might as well also suppose a masonry building still standing without all the bricks and mortar. Men laboring and inventing and discovering are what civilization IS. Without men constantly fighting against entropy, civilization collapses.

But you still need the 50th man.

You need more than just the 50th if you want any semblance of civilization or culture to persist. Do you really think that one man will be able to plow the fields and chop the wood and chase away the predators and write the books and do all the things necessary to maintain a society for 51 people all by himself? Sure one man can impregnate 50 women or 50 thousand women, but unless you’re fine with a collapse into hand to mouth animal level savagery, someone still has to do all the work. Do you think women are going to take up the slack? Especially when pregnant?

whereas I believe with the advent of MGTOWism, civilization is already taking its stride to male scarcity..

Nah. MGTOW are a symptom of civilization collapse. Male scarcity isn’t coming except as part of scarcity in general.

Lean times are coming for women.

But that is not our problem.

[Author]

Posts