Confused about the "Male Disposability" talk

[VarunParticipant 2981]

So in a way, men are disposable species-wise, but not civilization-wise.

What I’m trying to understand is will the 50th man still be ‘disposable’ with a collapse into hand to mouth animal level savagery?

I’m leaving the civilization aspect out of it because you are right. One man cannot do it all alone. BUt disposability comes into play ony because there are so many men…..clearly you cannot say the last man on earth is disposable? I find that hard to believe.

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

[sidecarParticipant 35842]

Varun wrote:

So in a way, men are disposable species-wise, but not civilization-wise.

Not just in a way. That’s exactly it. Except it’s only the individual man who is disposable (and in a just society only if he so chooses). The gene pool can afford to lose a man (singular) here or there a lot more easily than it can afford to lose a woman, because sperm is unlimited and eggs aren’t.

But men (plural) are absolutely essential to civilization, because men create civilization. Civilization is men creating and building and so on. Civilization is entirely masculine.

Meanwhile, women? No. Not really. Time and again it has been shown that feminine civilization is an impossible paradox. It just doesn’t happen. Ever. Despite feminists pseudoscientific speculation and outright fantasy, no matriarchal society has ever advanced beyond subsistence living. The best women can do is comfort (and try to justify) themselves with foolish lies about women supposedly civilizing men.

There are very specific reasons for that, again mostly coming down sperm being cheap and ova being expensive, but I don’t really have the time, or inclination, to go into all the minutia here. Suffice to say, that dutch (?) survivor clone where they separated out the teams by sex, and the men got their s~~~ together while the women were a total clusterf~~~, was practically canonical (and also fully predictable to anyone but a feminist).

BUt disposability comes into play ony because there are so many men…..clearly you cannot say the last man on earth is disposable? I find that hard to believe.

But that’s what I’m getting at. An individual man is disposable, but men aren’t. You only get to the final 50th man if you dispose of all the other men, and disposing of him would mean all the men have been disposed of, and that society is finished.

This is a mistake feminists make when they try to understand male disposability. They think it applies to all men, or at least the majority, instead of just to a single man hear and there. Then they go on to write idiotic crap like the scum manifesto, not understanding that, should they every enact their stupid little plans, they would only be destroying themselves. Even if they somehow luckily manage to avoid extinction they would only be putting women under the ironclad dominion of the men who remain, because that’s how the law of supply and demand works.

[MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To GiveParticipant 6635]

Varun wrote:

clearly you cannot say the last man on earth is disposable? I find that hard to believe.

Only if he’s able to impregnate the 50 females before he dies. Im assuming from a reproductive standpoint he’s disposable because once the seeds are planted humanity can live on.

Never lose sight of what brought you here.

[sidecarParticipant 35842]

MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To Give wrote:

Only if he’s able to impregnate the 50 females before he dies. Im assuming from a reproductive standpoint he’s disposable because once the seeds are planted humanity can live on.

Humanity? Yes. If it’s very lucky. It’s possible.

Civilization? Not a chance. Utterly impossible.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

Hmm. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

If only the feminists knew about this, those who want to finish off 90% of the male population. They don’t know that it would adversely affect them in the long run.

If civilization collapses, and humanity is reduced to savagry, we all know who would get the raw end of the deal: Women. They would be dehumanized and treated like possessions/objects like the neanderthals used to do.

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

[Author]

Posts