Numerous studies show that people are more willing to inflict harm on men than women, more willing to kill men than women, and treat harm against men as less serious than harm against women. Women treat men as less valuable to a greater degree than men, and women who identify as feminists may be even more sexist than women on average. These attitudes are promoted by women to their children, but not by men.
Significant examples include the "trolley Problem" where subjects are 7 times more likely to throw a man off a bridge to save others than a woman, and a variant of the Milgram experiment, where participants subjected men to greater electric shocks than women.
There is also evidence that suggest male disposability is a result of social conditioning, not instinct. The effect is larger if the subject is being watched than not, people report it is more socially acceptable to harm men than women.
The effect is also larger for the case of who to save on a sinking ship, where participants said 60:1 that it should be women first over men first.
Full details are here.
Flesh_Pillow5 5y ago
Makes me sad, angry and hurt just reading coming across this because deep down I know it's true.
CriticalFrimmel 5y ago
I tend to go to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics website and search/find the "Census of Workplace Fatalities." You can find years and years of these documents. They will consistently show that 92% of those killed at work are men.
5147 total deaths with 4761 of those being male for 92.5% in 2017.
5250 total deaths with 4837 of those being male for 92.1% in 2018.
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm
That's a pretty clear picture of disposable.
TheProfitMotive 5y ago
Dude this is GOOD NEWS!!
When you know you that other people don't give a fuck about you, it means YOU DONT HAVE TO GIVE A FUCK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE!
And being a guy on here likelihood is you are much stronger mentally & physically than most.
Tan_Pear639 5y ago
This dates back to our hominid ancestry. It’s all about the reproductive output of your tribe. Protect the females so our tribe grows stronger. Bigger tribe means more success at foraging food and being victorious in beating out rival tribes.
It’s even a major tenet in the Abrahamic religions. “Have many children for the glory of God.” Why do they say that? Not because it’s beautiful to have babies but because you need numbers to beat out those heathens and infidels.
If your tribe consists of 50 females and 50 males, the maximum neonates you can have next year is 50. So if you go to war and lose 25 males, you can still have 50 babies next year. But if you lose 25 females, you can only have 25 babies next year. Then your rival tribe can conquer you. So it’s protect the women at all costs. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of you.
lala_xyyz 5y ago
it's actually exactly the opposite: if you don't have enough men to protect the tribe, others will conquer you. hunter-gatherers were in perpetual warfare and food was scarce, population growth was way below the reproduction rates. excess men can always kidnap women of other tribes, it's an ancient custom documented in many cultures. tribe is strong not by the number of its vaginas but by the number of its warriors. excess female infants were often killed because they were wasteful
IterMercator 5y ago
Feminism has gaslighted against the idea that (particularly white) women are the apex of privilege (claiming men are instead), but when you look at any "women oppressive" tradition or law, it's almost always rooted in protecting the women(because of what you said). The idea that women are valuables even stretches to stuff like racism (Both Asians and Blacks stealing women have been racist ideas in the past and still to this day) and what not.
It's been pretty obvious throughout history that women are valuable and again it's only until feminism gaslighted that it wasn't so they can demonise men/patriarchy.
ebaymasochist 5y ago
It makes sense from the strategy that you just explained*. If a woman from your tribe reproduced with a man from another tribe, she then has to choose loyalties between yours and theirs. The man becoming one of you, as opposed to her leaving and becoming one of them, is very low. As recent events show quite well, tribalism is still going strong. Past battles of our ancestors are still influencing our opinions of each other. Loyalties are questioned and lines are drawn between US and THEM. People stuck in between have a lot of disadvantages.
Edit: the strategy of the comment you responded to*
jm51 5y ago
No big deal, that's just the way it is.
Only women...and some men... complain about the way the world works.
RevolutionaryPea7 5y ago
It should be obvious why. A civilisation that doesn't care about its women will not survive. Men can't reproduce. Women are biologically programmed to care for themselves, but men are biologically programmed to care about women. Nobody cares about other men. Not really. Sometimes they might appear to but in reality they just want your resources or are driven by guilt or something. Only women receive genuine care because only women are important for survival of the species.
[deleted]
kyutie23 5y ago
This reminded me of Bill Burr's bit about feminism and the Titanic. Only women and children on the lifeboats, that's why men get paid more
halfback910 5y ago
And women grt periods every month. It's just the way nature is. We aren't philosophers cursed with enough nature to behave like apes.
We are apes cursed with enough philosophy to understand nature lol.
Fozes 5y ago
wOmEn GeT pErIoDs
This is a biological function; nature, not men's fault. Opposed to the social conditioning of male disposability. Besides men are more inclined to kidney stones and i'd rather go through pregnancy with the conveniences of modern medicine than experience testicular torsion
TheRedPike Senior Endorsed 5y ago
+1
[deleted]
jojojijo333 5y ago
Everyone need to read The Boy Crisis and other books of Warren Farrell
CriticalFrimmel 5y ago
"The Myth of Male Power" is terrific at illustrating how society treats men as disposable. Farrell gets fairly run down for some things but if you want to understand Red Pill in a broader context than how to get laid his books are the pharmacy for a different kind of Red Pill.
Joey_Lopez 5y ago
I think that'll be too depressing for me to read.
HumanSockPuppet 5y ago
It will either depress you, or it will motivate you to never stagnate, to always hone your skills and keep yourself competitive and valuable.
UltraCarnivore 5y ago
Go black pill or go red pill
custoscustodis 5y ago
This.
comptejete 5y ago
Disposability is freedom. It's a matter of perspective.
Joey_Lopez 5y ago
I have actually wrote a post at PPD saying the same thing.
Er1ss 5y ago
It shouldn't be depressing. It's nature. The survival and evolution of humanity makes males disposable. It also sets them free and encourages risk taking. Men go out, face a trial by fire and the ones who prove themselves get to fuck. It's glorious.
The depressing part is that most men haven't found the path and are lost in the distractions of modern society. Instead rejoice in being disposable and listen to it's call for action.
That said I get the feeling OP is coming from a different angle so his post might indeed be depressing to read and a waste of time.
25russianbear25 5y ago
The - "why are poor poor? when they can just lift themselves by the bootstraps and stop being poor" theory
Nobody cares about your anecdotes, its absolutely worthless when compared to statistics.
notWhatIsTheEnd 5y ago
manumiss1on 5y ago
Most of the post is just about the science - the last two sections are speculation about the causes, where I do disagree with the redpill interpretation.
Lysander91 5y ago
The issue is that men now face legal discrimination which makes it more difficult for us to succeed. We face all of the same problems, but the positive trade offs have been taken away.
mkn1407 5y ago
Completely agree. That is in fact our challenge in a nutshell.
throwawaycunt1997 5y ago
It’s not nature any more than people are just poorly socialized animals. Any good soul, male or female, is fully capable of showing respect for other sentient forms of life on this planet; people are quick to kill a snake here in the south, but that doesn’t necessarily make it okay, as they are just as alive, feel pain and share an important role in the local ecology. Everyone has the choice to be kind, to be wise, and show respect for life. But they don’t, because they listen to what their society tells them. Men are evil cuz muh toxic masculinity, all snake poisonous bad rope must hurt must kill. Almost no child is born inherently evil, disrespectful or hateful of life; this is taught to them based off of toxic tribal bias. It should damn well be considered unacceptable, and anyone with any testicular fortitude would stand up for that fact to balance the polarity of this shit infested culture.
[deleted]
Mylaur 5y ago
The article just said it's literally social conditioning.
rockyp32 5y ago
its really is just conditioning. Were conditioned to fucking care too much. its so much simpler when u stop
Quo210 5y ago
Success is usually luck. Fuck that
Invaincu 5y ago
Yup, and the harder I work on the *right* things (leverage), the luckier I get. Successs is all about learning the skills (technical AND soft) that increase the probabilities.
TheEgyptianConqueror 5y ago
That's just not true. Some luck is involved, but I'd you want it, you can be successful barring extraordinary circumstances
theguytheguy1000 5y ago
I've come to realize something.
​
The only, AND I MEAN ONLY, reason that the red pill is "depressing" or anger inducing, is because of the contrast between it and the comforting lies we get raised on.
​
It's the CONTRAST between what we are taught and what reality is that depresses you.
​
if we were taught that women can be bad too, men are disposable etc. etc. from day 1 then we wouldn't be depressed because it would just be what it is.
ebaymasochist 5y ago
Idk man I was always taught that slavery is bad and it's still depressing to hear about people in slavery right now. And I have little doubt part of this "disposable man" belief still has roots in the last couple hundred years when people went from being legal property, to having more and more rights but still valued by how much we can produce for others. We all know our stuff is made by people who make almost no money. Not to mention the wars that sent so many men to their deaths for such little gain. And we make heroes of these men who went against their will to die for bullshit. It's all backwards. No one dreams as a child to grow up and die at 20 years old in a war. Social conditioning is what keeps them from saying "no, fuck you, find another way because I am not going to risk my life."
It's up to you to decide if you are disposable or not, and if you want the men around you to know that they have value as well. The answer is not to teach young men that they are worthless to society so they are not disappointed later. It's to tell them that they have value to YOU.
Resolution437 5y ago
"rejoice in being disposable" -> YOLO
TheProfitMotive 5y ago
Exactly. If nobody cares about you then you don't have to care about anybody. Yknow what that's called?....Freedom.
iCeeYouP 5y ago
"Ones who gets to prove themselves get to fuck"
Just World fallacy. 80% of time, the ones who fuck expend no effort nor "face trail by fire".
TheProfitMotive 5y ago
Not true at all.
As a guy drowning in pussy, the guys getting the most bitches are the guys who put the most work in re: looks,money, status etc
If you don't buy that, why are you on this sub lol?
iCeeYouP 5y ago
Not true at all.
You don't put in work by being those things re: born 6 ft+, born into wealth, born with good looking face, etc.
I don't buy that, why do you lol?
TheProfitMotive 5y ago
Lol dude there are guys who have that shit and still get left on seen by bitches.
Those things will open the door for you but unless you are redpill women will not stick around / will just use you
rockyp32 5y ago
the fucked up part is reading the comment above about "trial by fire" i took it as probably the truth until i read these comments. Just goes to show how susceptible group think is in TRP
dusara217 5y ago
Right, I'm sure it's just impossible for Arnold Schwarzenegger to get laid. After all, he put in all that effort - no way would he get laid if he's putting in all that effort.
Fozes 5y ago
The difference is a 5'6 ectomorph putting in the same effort. He'll get jack shit for working just as hard.
HeroSold 5y ago
I get the point you’re making (and I’m not saying that you’re wrong), but most of the guys I know in my personal life that get laid a lot don’t put in much effort.
Dandeeasalion 5y ago
I agree to a point. I would just like to add that there are certainly some men who don't have to put in any or much effort (6'5" with a handsome face), but alas, others just don't have the same starting point.
LolTroll11 5y ago
True that. Also, time and again we are told by anthropologists that Female's value is tied to her sexuality and men are all about riches.
How many people would throw Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates over a woman in the trolley problem. Rich Men >>>> Fertile Women. I think that tells me what to do.
EscobapRablo 5y ago
What about Rich & Fertile Women? Like young Kim Karsdashian. Would you throw her or Bezoz?
pragmaticminimalist 5y ago
is this the same boating mishap that caused me to lose all those guns?
LolTroll11 5y ago
Most rich women are spouse of rich men or have divorced rich men. So, there's hardly any value that rich women would bring to the table. Unlike thier husbands who would be busting thier ass to keep the shit going.
Also, I think the primary source of income for Kim Kardashian is her body. I don't think that's an investment. It's like being a TV Thot. Would I throw some TV or e-thot over a high paying Software Engineer ? No, it's time before she would hit the wall and suddenly nobody wants to watch her. Our Software Engineer on the other hand can increase his pay and ranks.
EscobapRablo 5y ago
Yes, but most are blue pilled and think women are Queens to be saved
Whitified 5y ago
The OP literally states that there is evidence that "male disposability" is a result of social conditioning
But I suppose it makes men feel better about themselves to think the reason they get to mate is due to their greatness
"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina." -Esther Vilar
ebaymasochist 5y ago
It seems like way too many men have missed the "stop putting women on a fucking pedestal" wisdom and focused right on "just find ways to please them and you will be what they want". You are deemed worthy to clean the ass that sits on the pedestal, so you're better than the men who do not.
So now, men who would go into battle with you, build a house with you, pick you up when you are down, be real friends and brothers... Assets to our lives. Just loser competition who aren't able to please the almighty woman like we can... Fuck that. Men are not disposable and we are not just competition in the bitch pleasing race.
The "unconditional" love and validation men want from women, and will fail to find, can only come from our brothers. Not from women, and not from our parents, not from ourselves even. When you go from a period of having no friends to having true friends, it becomes easy to see.
I'm talking about friends who you haven't seen in years but you call them and can talk about life for hours without any doubt of their motivations for helping you.
Whitified 5y ago
It's worse than that. They're not just saying you're disposable. They're saying it's in your nature to be disposable to women. This effectively absolves them of all responsibility from simping.
It wouldn't be so ironic if this sub isn't the same sub that tells us not to simp
ebaymasochist 5y ago
But if you it this way you get a better treat in return. Fuck I'm so conflicted now, because I have been so vocal about it being okay to want sex and be motivated by sex, and the guys who want to make the sub about reaching a higher consciousness throwing shit off topic. I draw the line at men deciding the value of other men based on how well they can please women. We're not soldiers in the Queen's army.
Same pig, different shade of lipstick this time.
Ill_mumble_that 5y ago
Both.
I am motivated to become the best man I can be, by sex. I mean the vast vast majority of my motivation is sex. Lifting? I do it for me, but also because sex. Money? So I can have shit, including sex. Socializing with others? Necessary for money, but also for sex. Learn philosophy and understand the world? Mostly so I can be enlightened compared to the simps and not feel guilty about sex, despite the general culture telling me I should be.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Whitified 5y ago
I'm one of the latter guys tbh. I will never agree with people throwing shit off topic of course (becos nowhere else can you even discuss male sexual strategy)
But at some point you must realize that if women is your goal, you will be a WIMP (women-influenced-male-person). You cannot avoid that inevitable ending unless you reach a higher consciousness. The guy above with the 100+ upvotes is proof.
Still, "higher consciousness" is clearly not what this sub is about. It's disingenuous to turn a community into something it is not, that's the the kinda shit feminists/women do.
Personally I see it as simply white knighting. All of modern society is gynocentric, which means nobody wants to see male sexual strategy being discussed. This can include even people within this sub. So naturally they try to derail whenever they can. It's not "higher consciousness" they seek because having a space where men can discuss non-female-serving sexual strategy at all is already an incredible feat in the modern world. Rather than stand back and admire, they decide to derail. So it has to be white knighting.
ebaymasochist 5y ago
One of the biggest things that changed my life was my trade school teacher in high school says: "A real man finds his weaknesses and turns them into his strengths.". That changed everything for me, because I thought people were just good at some things and bad at others and that didn't change much. But now I practice this as much as possible. I'm really bad at being organized. So I'm going to have systems that make me more organized than most people. What he was really saying is to immerse yourself into something with a goal until you are proficient at it.
I applied the same thing to approaching women. Put everything else mostly on the back burner and went out more than most people could and became very strong in this one regard. Other areas did suffer but I was able to fix them later while knowing that I had this new life skill that would be important. I think that is what some guys really need to do, but be aware of it and set boundaries and limits on themselves. Like training for an Olympic event. It doesn't pay much, takes so much time and energy, but that shouldn't stop you from making the sacrifice for that period in your life. And then you go back to having balance.
Joey_Lopez 5y ago
I mostly feel like that but sometimes it gets depressing and I don't like it when people try to exploit us because we are viewed as disposable.
PleasantWheat 5y ago
Yeah dude I get that, it's all so fucking tiresome
LolTroll11 5y ago
I think the study is not totally correct. They should have also taken the attractiveness of the woman into account. Who would kill a man over an ugly woman.
Also, is the man a well known Rich guy. Guess what, men's advantage is thier Money. I won't choose to throw Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates over some random Girl.
PandaLitter 5y ago
I'd throw bezos off, tf?
Who do you think is funding the world's shenanigans?
redditor67tny 5y ago
You think his money disappears when he dies?
PandaLitter 5y ago
I have a better chance of getting with the woman than getting my shekels back from bezos, that's for sure
Ill_mumble_that 5y ago
But, if you saved Bezos, he'd owe you a favor. And that has more value than a single vagina.
[deleted]
bone_shadows 5y ago
if red pill logic is sad that means you are still clinging to blue pill dreams. smash that shit man the better off you are
Elicommand 5y ago
Accepting a reality and liking/dislking a reality aren’t the same
Joey_Lopez 5y ago
It's not that simple. Recently noticed how my job has an unwritten rule where expect the men to protect the females. Even though we both get paid the same.
Also been noticing how my mom also views me as disposable.
odaklanan_insan 5y ago
Women are actually much more disposable than men when they get old. Men tend to become unreplacable when they get old.
This doesn't apply to lazy men who age without getting any real experience.
yety175 5y ago
Just look at who kept working during the lock down at the beginning of the year
plascra 5y ago
Men will always have the burden of performance.
Push on my comrade in arms.
Vynxe-Vainglory 5y ago
If you needed multiple scientific studies to notice and accept this, you’re already doomed anyway.
trpjnf 5y ago
IMO, male disposability is just one half of a two sided coin. Women are inherently reproductively valuable because eggs are scarce and sperm is abundant. That means fertility is going to determine 90% of a woman’s sexual market value. If you aren’t an attractive woman, then there’s not much you can do about it.
Men, by contrast, are valuable for what they can provide. Sure, men are disposable, but that’s if the only value they provide is as cannon fodder. If you’re a dude with his shit together (and hopefully you are/are aiming to be if you’re browsing here) then you likely provide more value than cannon fodder and therefore are less disposable. So in a way, we’re more free than women in this regard, as we can become reproductively valuable by more than simply being physically attractive. This is why people preach height and physique aren’t everything here (easy for me to say though, I’m 6’3” and have a chiseled jaw). I mean look at Bobby Lee, his wife is bangin and like a foot taller than him. Y’all can do it, you just need to really own your shit
Ryzasu 5y ago
I think this is kind of a bullshit reason. The fact that eggs are finite has no practical concequences on society. Women have eggs up until their 40's, and men's fertility also declines with age although not as predictably
trpjnf 5y ago
Consider this. Imagine there are ten women and ten men in a space ship escaping earth (or one hundred or one thousand apiece, whatever). This small group of humans is fleeing Earth to save the species by going to another planet and starting anew.
Given the stakes of survival, each one of those women is going to need to get pregnant as many times as possible in order to give the species a fighting chance at surviving. However, with the number of eggs each has being limited, each mother is going to need to be especially discerning about which male she partners up with, to maximize the fitness of their children. She can only release her eggs until her 40’s, after all. (Sperm production, by contrast, continues into the 80’s for men, before facing a pretty steep decline. Given that the expected life span for men is about 80 in most developed countries, it’s not unreasonable to say that men produce sperm their whole lives).
With each woman wanting to maximize the fitness of their children, they are likely to converge on a small group of men to be fathers (and in theory, only one is necessary, ignoring any modern knowledge about the benefits of genetic diversity). And of course, this is just a thought experiment. We obviously have technology nowadays for freezing eggs and sperm rendering most of the questions presented here irrelevant.
Now, flashback 10,000 years ago before the invention of agriculture. This was the situation humans evolved in. There were small roaming and warring tribes, and there were only a few women in your tribe. Eggs were TRULY scarce. Woman HAD to choose someone who could provide for them.
This kind of thinking was necessary to ensure survival. Though no longer necessary in the modern world, it shaped our cognitive processes, and 10,000 years later, we still run very similar cultural software. “It’s all the same, only the names have changed” as they say.
I have a whole essay about how the modern male malaise goes back to World War II and the global economy, based on similar ideas about how male cognitive processes emerged in a similar way (the three P’s of masculinity: protect, provide, procreate, seem to have emerged early in our history but have been disrupted by the global economy and modern militaries/police forces). But that’s a story for another time.
custoscustodis 5y ago
I think this was the case in the recent past, but not anymore. Now, sex is mostly based solely on pleasure, not necessarily pure reproduction--at least in the West. Even unattractive women are attractive now because guys aren't worrying about being seen with them, marrying them, and reproducing with them. Just hooking up and going your own way after.
Wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said.
trpjnf 5y ago
Ehh, still think the rule applies. Sure you’d bang an ugly chick, but nobody is gonna marry and have kids with her
custoscustodis 5y ago
I think there is always SOMEONE out there.
rockyp32 5y ago
just wondering is getting pussy easy casue ur 6'3 with a good jaw? or is it the confidence you get from know ur attractive
trpjnf 5y ago
I would say it’s a feedback loop. Both of those things give me confidence bc they help me attract girls, but bc I’m confident that makes me more attractive.
It is a little bit more complicated than just being tall and handsome though. I’ve been working on this idea of what I call a “status portfolio” that I’m hoping to post here soon. Basically, I have a lot of different things going for me beyond just my physique that make me more attractive because I have the together and that gives me confidence
custoscustodis 5y ago
Agree with the feedback loop.
Fozes 5y ago
Imagine believing this. Whatever toots your own horn buddy
trpjnf 5y ago
The science backs me up on this one. Status is significantly associated with reproductive success for men, and it doesn’t depend on what kind of status it is. Here’s one meta-analysis paper that talks about it. Do good looking/tall guys get laid a lot? Certainly. Looks and height are a status symbol, and they’re easier to acquire just by being lucky than putting in the work to actually be good at something. But a dude who is just tall and good looking will get laid far less than a dude who’s at the top of his field, no matter what they look like.
Comedian Bobby Lee is like 5’5”, Asian, pudgy, and is married to a ~ 5’9” dime. This isn’t an isolated example either, here’s a bunch more of hot chicks wirh ugly dudes (a few are hot dudes with ugly chicks but you get the idea).
rockyp32 5y ago
I’m sure u do but I’m just asking about ur looks and height specifically.
I think attraction for guys is honestly a mindset in a big way.
Fozes 5y ago
"wow his mindset is so hot" lmao ok
rockyp32 5y ago
if u kno wur sexy as fuck u have a certain confidence. what if u never looked in the mirror and knew u were ugly? how different would ur confidence be
Fozes 5y ago
Then what happens when you know for a fact that you are ugly? You just become a stepping stone for everyone else's happiness. "At least I'm not as ugly as that guy"
rockyp32 5y ago
u probably feel way less happy
[deleted]
El0vution 5y ago
There’s nothing inherently unfair with these findings.
richardbransonbutnot 5y ago
I think this would be too hard to isolate to draw any conclusions.
How far back would we have to go to get a real perspective of a man being useful in a way that we claim to be useful? It's been viable for a very long time that someone could survive without any real need to be able to physically defend themself.
We would need to observe a society where every man's value is very clear, and everyone in the community has a deeply rooted understanding of the usefulness of the different sexes to tell whether it's instinct or not.
ToraChan23 5y ago
I'd say as far back as organized wars go
extensionsorbit 5y ago
I think male disposability is a thing and, unfortunately, that it is probably genetically hardwired to some degree.
ToraChan23 5y ago
They spent time and money on a scientific study that proved what we already know.
Men who make themselves disposable aren't doing the brotherhood or themselves any favors. Men who aren't select try to leverage their disposability (ex. being a wage slave in order to reproduce) to make up for their lack of desirability.
Quo210 5y ago
Man that's not how science works.
We all knew from ancient times the sea is salty. "why?" Because Poseidon took a piss on it, because the tears of Tiamat, because the mermaids curse the water to be undrinkable, or whatever bullshit.
An study made to determine Why it's salty and the salt concentration can give you something to an objetive truth about it.
Same way, an study made to know why male disposability exists, where does it comes from and what can be done about it isn't a waste, it's very useful. Specially in these trying times where defending men is seen as "male supremacy"
ToraChan23 5y ago
You're right and have a point.
Do you seriously think this study will help change this sentiment?
Quo210 5y ago
Not online, yes everywhere else.
I'm not American and here a lot of people regard the feminist imperative as a bunch of women starved for dick.
Online will remain a leftist hive that will radicalize over time.
ToraChan23 5y ago
I agree that's a good thing, but I don't see how that would translate to these same people not treating men as if they are expendable.
bone_shadows 5y ago
realistically speaking, it does not matter to me personally since ive trained in martial arts for 5 years, carry around two knives, a handgun in my car and own 3 rifles and a shotgun at home.
lol i would really like to see a woman or even another man throw me off a bridge. give me a reason, please. growing up in a rough neighborhood will ingrain the fact that people will cause harm to you as a man. Its not even a red pill thing.
IterMercator 5y ago
Honestly being grown up in a rough neighbourhood as a guy is a red pill wakeup in itself. Women are treated like gold and protected as such, meanwhile men can get killed just because someone wanted to. You learn how society works very fast after that.
[deleted]
Lionheart27778 5y ago
Imo, as humans , we are in the process of a social evolution.
Chivalry and "women and children first" is dieing as a male attitude, due to women now having equal rights. Society should be moving towards true equality between the sexes.
However, current feminism has stalled this social evolution due female selfishness.
i.e : them wanting equal rights but also special treatments such as chivalry, divorce power ect. Leading many men to be confused and lied to as part of the feminist agenda.
Therefore , we are currently stuck at a halfway point in this social evolution - stuck at a half way point that mainly benefits women.
This has led to the red pill and mras becoming a thing.
ToraChan23 5y ago
This goes to show that we aren't stuck at a halfway point; we just pivoted towards another direction.
LolTroll11 5y ago
I think it's a problem that'll solve itself. Meb would become uninterested in women due to risks involved and who knows maybe, we would find women dancing on Men's tune in the future.
ellendegenorate 5y ago
Feminism, taking all the power without the responsibilities. Odds are half of them have dumped multiple babies. So now we have this in the back of our brain saying women are inheritantly worth more from reproductive value, but modern women waste it. The times will change as more men nope out and go their own way.
urbanfoh 5y ago
Then this social evolution is embedded in a genetic evolution as mainly conservatives and trads procreate while feminists waste their genetic potential
Pezotecom 5y ago
Nothing has stalled. I believe we are moving faster and faster to a place in which everybody is the "same" : the internet. Here, everyone can be whoever they want. True equality.
Whitified 5y ago
cancel culture. Heard of it?
TFWnoLTR 5y ago
Idk. A lot of the time I can tell it's a woman after reading a good chunk of their posts.
I suppose it's also a lot more common to mistake a man for a woman online than it is to mistake a woman for a man, but I'm right a bit more often than not.
It's partially in how they respond to questions on how they arrived at whatever opinion they stated, and partially in how much of their posts are empty virtue signals.
Maybe someday women will learn to use more logical reasoning over emotional like men, but we definitely aren't even close to there yet.
TheBoredIndividual 5y ago
While i get frustration with this isnt this just part of the territory? Men are stronger, more violent, protective(sometimes), aggressive, and take more risks. They bring home the bacon. It just seems that this is an unfortunate side effect. I honestly dont think its wrong, maybe it sucks but it is kind of how it should be.
*Ive never commented here just read, i dont agree with everything, but mostly its my own shit not society in general. I guess you you would im a purple pill guy.
NormalAndy 5y ago
That’s why we used to open doors and let women and children first.
I think it’s still like that but everyone forgot the necessity for a moment.
BriefcaseHead2 5y ago
Learnt about the Milgram experiment at least 20+ times over 4 years of psychology in high school and college. They never fucking mentioned the data that the men were more likely to get greater shocks. It seems so damn obvious but I never even thought about it. Wow. And we learnt, in detail, about all of the variations that were carried out. Fucking education system.
manumiss1on 5y ago
Just to be clear, this was a different experiment, it just was modeled on the Milgram one except the sex of the subjects was varied.
[deleted]
Pycnostyle 5y ago
I always thought getting rid of the women and children was so that the men could focus on saving the ship.
IterMercator 5y ago
If they are going to die, might as well have some peace and quiet in their final hours
trapsdeltsbis 5y ago
If humanity were to face a major disaster that wiped out most of the population, only one man is needed to repopulate the earth. If there were 100 women left alive and only one man, theoretically, that (very lucky) man could impregnate every single one and humanity would have a good chance of survival. On the other hand, if there were 100 men and only one woman, 99 of the men would be useless once the woman is impregnated. If the woman dies for any reason, humanity would go extinct.
[deleted]
manumiss1on 5y ago
I think in the first situation, they would all die of starvation - see my previous comment
yomo86 5y ago
Men are more disposable but when you are disposable you have nothing to lose, don't you? That's one of the reasons why men are seen as more dangerous in every aspect.
PatrickIIDX 5y ago
We live in a gynocentric society. It is what it is. There is nothing we can do to change this. Arguably 80% of men are still simps/whiteknights/etc, because "They love women".
Casanova-Quinn 5y ago
The only proof of male disposability that anyone needs is this: What scenario is better for the survival of humanity?
A. 1 man and 100 women
B. 100 men and 1 woman
If it wasn’t obvious, the answer is A. You could have 100 new babies per year. At the very core, men are inherently less valuable to society because of this reason.
manumiss1on 5y ago
Assuming you're talking about a hunter-gatherer society, then in scenario A, the tribe would all die of starvation or be killed by a rival tribe.
In scenario B, they would have an excess of food, could steal women from other tribes and also protect their children.
This argument is ignoring men's value to society (hunting and protection) and then saying "look men have no value".
Until very recently the lack of food has been the limiting factor on population, and the ability to reproduce has never been.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
INNASKILLZ2K18 5y ago
But in the world today there are billions of men and women. Reproduction ain't a problem. Over-population is a problem on some places.
Just playing devil's advocate. Does the 'indisposibility' of women increase when there are literally billions more to mate with?
Casanova-Quinn 5y ago
Accidentally deleted my previous comment: My scenario assumes the 101 people are the only humans in existence. There are no other humans to deal with.
I’m not saying that men have no value. They just have lesser value when it comes to reproduction, and thus survival, of the human race. Men have more value when it comes to protecting, maintaining, and advancing society.
Casanova-Quinn 5y ago
I’d partially agree that with billions of women on earth, that does make them more disposable. However, as humans we still have primal instincts that make us value women over men when it comes to survival situations. The bias still exists in modern times because of our evolutionary past.
INNASKILLZ2K18 5y ago
Be careful with this stuff.
Why anyone wants to seek out studies to confirm how disposable men are, I don't know.
What is the point of that? What end goal does it achieve other than doom and gloom.
Wanna be careful you don't go the feminist route; 'look how bad we have it and everyone hates us, we even have studies to prove it'.
You could easily do studies of attractive, strong men finding tons of satisfaction and people wanting them.
I think finding these studies just leads to a victim, hopeless mentality.
exploderator 5y ago
These things can be very hard to untangle, when underlying instincts are promoted / normalized by social conditioning / popularity. The parallel example would be the protection of women, which is surely both instinctive and a popular norm expressed in most cultures.
Thus I question the "is a result of social conditioning, not instinct". Why not both? People can have instinctive moral intuitions, which they can then display when people are looking, in order to gain social brownie points. I suggest this is often a major component of virtue signaling.
poshmarkedbudu 5y ago
They are intertwined and there isn't a clear separation.
eyesbluelying 5y ago
If they are intertwined then both mechanisms apply.
IterMercator 5y ago
Honestly it feels included as a "but actually" disclaimer, the reason men are disposable compared to women is because of how the social dynamic works, which is directly based off the fact that producing a child (rather than just giving sperm) is more valuable to a population, like how younger women are worth more than older ones. Therefore it can be called a social condition, however when it's directly from inherent value, it seems strange to not call it instinctual
Looking into the article, this is what it's based on:
Which is as flimsy as the paper for connecting the points together.
manumiss1on 5y ago
​
That's the argument which suggests the attitudes are promoted by women rather than men, and I agree that is quite weak.
The arguments that it's social conditioning rather than instinctive are:
exploderator 5y ago
All of these arguments are easily FOR male disposability being driven by instinct.
This is an argument for male disposability being driven by our instincts. Everybody knows the "correct" outcome, because everybody knows the same instinctual logic, the universal instinctive expectation of how sex roles are "supposed to" work in our species.
Social pressures for conformity are instinctive too. The pressure to "be good" by doing what we all know is "right" is absolutely typical stuff. We see the same with monkeys, who misbehave when nobody is looking, when they think they can break the rules.
"Women and children first" is arguably a more basic, archetypal formulation of the instinct. The trolley problem is abstract philosophical wankery concocted by academics to explore the deeper logic. Of course people feel more support for the simple classic, it connects more directly with their moral instincts, at the kind of simple level even a monkey can decode.
manumiss1on 5y ago
The simple answer is Occam's razor: if you have one explanation, you don't need to look for others.
exploderator 5y ago
Sorry mate, that's an incorrect application of Occam's razor. We're talking about primates here, and their behavior, which is a matter of natural facts we do not yet know. Occam's razor does not dictate the natural facts under examination.
First, we know some of our behavior (concerning male disposability) is explained by social factors, learned stuff, that much is clear due to the research (and common sense, because we almost always have such influences).
Next we are wondering whether or not our behavior is ALSO influenced by our instincts. Just because we have an answer that yes, there are learned influences, does not in any way eliminate the possibility of there ALSO being instincts at play. Your suggestion that having one answer rules out another is not valid logic.
Finally, Occam's razor does not mean "if you have one explanation, you don't need to look for others." It means if you're trying to pick between two explanations, the simpler is usually the better choice. But in no way does that general rule of thumb about logic override the complex facts of nature, and nature often picks the more complex answer. And regardless, we could argue that instinct would be the simpler answer here, not learned culture. Or we could argue the reverse. Which means the entire point of choosing one over the other based on simplicity does not apply here.
So sorry to say, you got everything wrong about this.
manumiss1on 5y ago
​
Agreed, Occam's razor is only a rule of thumb if you have no better evidence.
In this case, we know that culture plays a role, so the options are:
1 is the simplest, so in the absence of evidence that there is instinct at work as well, should be the default assumption
exploderator 5y ago
I'm not well studied with respect to the larger animal kingdom, but my impression is that nature is full of species where the males do dangerous and often lethal things like defend territory, defend the females and offspring, and in some cases are very much expendable. Such patterns are common from spiders to primates. Sperm is always cheap, after all, and wombs are not.
That is evidence that there are likely to be biological factors at play here, expressed in our primate instincts.
Next we need to ask, what gives rise to culture in the first place, what informs its patterns? Why do people feel more affinity to some patterns of behavior than others? If you want to suggest that male disposability is purely about culture, not instincts, then you have to be making the absurd claim that culture does not fundamentally reflect our instincts in the first place. I suggest you would be hard pressed to find any part of any culture, that isn't highly imbued with / influenced by our instincts, at least at the base level. Sure, detailed cultural trappings will often be arbitrary creations, you could say "purely cultural". But even then, the fact that people bother to adopt culture is influenced by instincts like tribalism, with people instinctively seeking to be distinct tribes who bond with common rituals. The bloods and the crips, red and blue, the choice of colors themselves matters little, but that people adopt and wear symbols of affiliation, and even kill each other over them, is a universal clearly driven by underlying instincts.
It seems highly unlikely that a subject so deeply associated with sexual differences would be free from the influences of our instincts. We're not talking about people's preferences for colors of house paint here, we're talking about sex roles in society. This is a subject highly dependent on our feelings, and our feelings are almost always fundamentally informed by our animal instincts.
throwlaja 5y ago
Men themselves are willing to risk and kill themselves more, and they even display that willingness and self-disposability as a form of manliness, we call it "courage".
Blazer808 5y ago
We hunted mammoths to extinction, we bent the elements to our will to create shelter and tools, we conquered the highest mountains and the deepest oceans, we built or destroyed empires, we discovered the rules of the universe in the form of mathematics, created awe inspiring works of fiction beyond our wildest imagination or chronicled epic sagas, we've sent people to the moon and we'll end up conquering stars as well.
I don't give a fuck what a cock gobbling blue-haired fat cunt and her limp wrist "male" goober orbiters think of me or other of my brothers, because I know when the time comes I will be able to protect myself and the ones I love while they're going to crawl back in their safe spaces, writing irrelevant Tweets spewing vitriol online because mommy or daddy didn't love them and didn't bother to raise a functional capable human being, their jealousy of success eating them away from the inside.
INB4 "who hurt you sweatie"
redpillcad 5y ago
Every male of every species has a father.
Not every male will be a father
arakouzo 5y ago
To add to this, male disposability is universal. Even the highest value, most wealthy, famous, productive, useful, masculine, amazing men are expected to be disposable over the least of women.
If the ship is sinking and the hot rich famous actor saves himself over an ugly fat waitress, the fact that he is a valuable man makes his inability to accept that he is disposable even more hated. As a valuable man, he's supposed to get it. People would expect an effeminate loser of a man to not get it and act pissy about going down with the ship. But a masculine man? It is grating to see him try to not be disposable.
chomponthebit 5y ago
Can you provide an example of when this has actually occurred?
Quo210 5y ago
Titanic movie, based on real history.
The "villain" that did everything in his hands to get on a boat and continue living is portrayed as the most disgusting, self absorbed piece of shit in the universe, not as a human desperate to live (because you know, men are subhuman and stuff).
Instead the guy willing to sacrifice himself for the protagonist is uplifted as a benchmark of all the romantic stories turbobullshit.
You could argue the most valuable man out of the 2 was the rich, dark-triad "villain" instead of the lazy, worker class "hero" but we see how society stands towards each one.
IterMercator 5y ago
Not exact but #MeToo cases with actors and such kind of show the idea that some random woman's word has more power than a high value man's word. Moreso before feminism as well, where in /u/arakouzo's example, the man's masculinity would be used as an argument to give up the space (at time or after), rather than his high value
[deleted]
[deleted]
MrTrizzles 5y ago
Sure, in the grand scheme of things, women can further the species.
But here in real life, if you’re disposable then you’re just a no-value loser.
Trying to pervert this concept to somehow explain one’s pathetic life is incel territory.
I’d also like to see someone marry this idea with the fact that men are naturally the providers. One cannot be an indispensable provider and disposable at the same time.
INNASKILLZ2K18 5y ago
It's the narrative; 'you're disposable and all alone, rah rah, cry cry'.
It usually becomes the 'be a lone wolf Alpha because nobody cares about you' story.
Black pill style.
vdzz000 5y ago
Might be because they're the weaker sex but can reproduce men, they also get into club for free while you have to pay. However i don't know many great female investors, the majority of billionaires and lawmakers are men. They commit less crime and are more likely to follow the rule that men creates. Many advantages and disadvantages.
[deleted]
Abulia13 5y ago
I saw a press report of a study that showed when bicyclists see a rider with a helmet they are less likely to move further away in their lane. When the bicyclist had a long pony-tail (suggesting) a female rider, drivers would shift over to the left further with or without a helmet.
[deleted]
AutoModerator 5y ago
Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.
Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Metroid_Zard 5y ago
What do you mean these attitudes are promote by women and not men? Biased. “Women and children first” is a global adage.
Neutral_User_Name 5y ago
I think it's normal, what are you trying to teach us?
Men are required for 20 seconds for reproduction, while for women it's 20 years. And after the cuck provided its seed, either a beta bucks or the governement (for which we all are the beta bucks) will take care of all the woman's basic needs, and then some.
uwey 5y ago
More science reason to ban women from taking advantage of man. Give women zero opportunities is good start.
Make sure abuse legal system against women (call on police, get restraining orders, and never live with women) and protect yourself against women. Women is not your friend.
Again, Women must be destroyed. WOMEN IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. Dog do better!
Carthago delenda est
How about: Muliercula delenda est
Nothing against women, just business. Be formal, be cold, and be selfish to women, to able to protect yourself. Don’t save women for the sake of their gender, don’t do shit for women, and make sure protect yourself so leave them zero opportunities. Let crazy be crazy.
Abraxas_Infinitum 5y ago
I haven't read the study yet, but wanted to ask if they have used this data and cross examined it with male suicide rates?