The Dispposable Male

In the Aurora movie theater shooting, of the 12 people dead, 3 of them were men who climbed on top of their girlfriends and shielded them with their bodies. All three women survived. Presumably the 3 women accepted the sacrifice, cowering under their boyfriends' bodies for protection. It is the voluntary acts of sacrifice that are the most striking, because they demonstrate that this gender role has been fully internalized. More on this later. First some examples of involuntary disposability.

If a firefighter finds two adults, one man and one woman, standing next to each other in a burning building, he will almost always save the woman first, regardless of the relative size of the two people.

"Women and children out first" is the evacuation order for a sinking ship. If there aren't enough spots on the lifeboats, it's the men who die.

The draft. Aproximately half of the homeless population to this day are Vietnam veterans, although they've begun dying off years ago. It's utterly shameful the way our nation has abandoned these poor souls who were forced to fight a war. Today, boys are coerced to register their draft cards when they turn 18. If there's another major war, it won't be women who die.

When women do die in war, genocide, or natural tragedy, it's considered worse than when men die. News reports often report female casualties seperately. "Hundreds died, including over 80 women and 30 children."

There are semi-voluntary sacrifices that men make, when social pressure and/or economic pressures force men into situations like working the vast majority of the most dangerous jobs, or joining the army to provide for a family.

But the most striking to me are the completely voluntary acts of self sacrifice. The gender role is so firmly internalized that men will act without hesitation to sacrifice themselves for women. And - this is important - women will act without hesitation to accept that sacrifice.

So that should be enough examples to establish the fact that male disposability exists. It's my contention that this is a societal norm, associated with a set of expectations, for which there are penalties for straying. These penalties include institutional discrimination and social pressure. The role is also internalized, through such means as parenting and youth culture.

What I'd like to do is first establish that this does indeed exist. So if there are any arguments on that point (I hope there aren't), I'd like to get those over with first. Then I want to go into a discussion of why these norms exist and how they are perpetuated, hopefully arriving at some ideas for eliminating this gender role, or at least making it noncompulsory.

 

In terms of catastrophes, women and children first is the way it should be.

I'll be among the first to whine about certain differences between genders in day to day life. But when it comes to stuff like the firefighter example or guys jumping in front of the batman shooter, kind of just reflex anyway, but the way it shoupd be. Whats the alternative, the other way round, guys hiding behind their girlfriends?

 

Besides guys being 'proud' I do not see any logical reason why women and children should be first.

Well, there is the fact that less males are needed to keep the population growing.

 

Well this is an interesting turn. I had expected maybe some denial. But I hadn't considered that I might encounter acceptance with gladness.

Do you truly believe that the life of a woman is more valuable than the life of a man? Can't really get much more misandrist than that.

No, I'm not suggesting that women should sacrifice themselves for men. I'm suggesting equality.

 

+rep......And Thats The Way It Should Be....



Cheers Glen.

 

This, I believe, is the root, the reason, for this gender role. I even think that to some extent it may be hardwired into us. But we certainly encourage it culturaly, through socialization and discriminatory rules and laws.

The thing is, we've got what, 7 Billion+ people on the planet now? There was a time when every uterus had to be protected for the survival of the species. But times have changed. Women aren't forced to be baby factories any more, and men shouldn't be forced to guard women at the cost of their lives.

 

Another aspect of this is the way women live several years longer than men do. There's some biology at work there, but the major difference is in the decisions people make about how they're going to live. That includes a lot of things we do--working at dangerous jobs, drinking too much, joining youth gangs, having sex with strangers, or not forming connections with other people (yes, being isolated is bad for us).

There's pull and there's push. Does society not value men because men don't value themselves, or is it that we don't value ourselves because we absorb the message that we aren't worth it?

And that Aurora movie theater massacre was an exception, but most often with these incidents it happens (like the Newtown Connecticut horror) that the murderer kills himself or lets the police kill him. Who's disposable?

 

What has this to do with equality? I assume they were not forced to do this. Wel yeah perhaps by their personal convictions what to do in such a situation. I don't think they were weighing what society's stance on this might be at that moment.

 

FALSE.

this is called the "Birkenhead drill" it has never been a standard order, and was only ever carried out twice in the whole of maritime history. once on the birkenhead (where the captain enforced his order with a revolver), the second on the titanic (which made it famous)

it is DEFINITELY the exception.

on average, women passengers are half as likely to survive a disastrous ship sinking than men, with crew members beating them by 18.7% there's no chivalry once ships start going down, it appears lol

 

I think there is an instinct born into us to help others.

I cannot tell you how many times I've been driving and thrown my arm in front of my husband, in the passenger seat, to protect him when people have started slamming on brakes in front of me. Of course we do it with children; like that arm will keep them from going out the windshield; but I've done it several times with my husband also.

 

interesting topic.

maybe men are "weak," such they would rather take a bullet for their wife, than have to watch their wife be shot

 

I know someone who broke his arm because of that. They were all drunk though and a guy sitting in the back tried to save the person in the passenger seat from slamming in the front window because he saw he didn't wear the seatbelts. Through the crash his arm got twisted and snapped.

 

Ow!!!


It's instinct with me. I do it even though every one is wearing their seat belt.

 

I think it was (drunk) instinct in that case too

 

I'm thinking it's not gender inequality, but rather gender consequence. Men not only fight wars, they start wars. Men are usually the gender that commit mass murder. They, moreso than women, do jobs/careers that require strength and courage. Meanwhile, women and children are innocent bystanders and therefore fall into the category of needing protection.

 

Sure, blame all the bad things in the world on men.

 

Men and bad hygiene.

 

We do what we do in the heat of the instant. I can't imagine myself hiding behind a woman OR a man if shooting or some such started. Testosterone surely has something to do with our reactions to sudden bad situations,if in fact men react in a more positive (actionable/proactive) way. Probably passed down in the collective genes from pre-history when home/hearth/women/child raising needed automatic protection.

 

I don't object to the sacrifices expected of men in traditional gender roles.

I object to the fact that feminists want to completely shit on men, and then get their asses kissed

along with the traditional sacrifices men were expected to make came a certain amount of respect.

it's clear that feminists have absolutely zero respect for men, and having been doing their damnedest to wage psychological war on us through the media