The Dispposable Male

You're not upset because I'm claiming victim status. You're upset because I'm not accepting women's victim status.

Interesting irony though. The insistence that I take women's problems more seriously than men's problems is part of male disposability.

Women have it worse than men, therefor any issue that does not impact women need not be addressed. That is your argument, is it not? I agree that it's probably best if you showed yourself the door of the Men's Issues forum. Not really sure what you're doing here in the first place, since you refuse to even consider that men's problems might be worth addressing.

 

You can go back and find it and quote it easily enough...I've seen you in action.

 

Is this the question? How the hell is this a direct question? In fact it's two questions, and they're very indirect.

I dunno if it's coincidence. I haven't read these forums you're speaking of and can't speak for other people I've never met. My guess would be that no, it's not coincidence. Now please procede to the obvious next stage of your argument so that I can then point out the ridiculous fallacies involved. Gawd you're tedious.

No wait, don't bother. Everyone knows what you're gonna say so I might as well save the post count. It is a sweeping generalization, because you are claiming that just because similar arguments are being presented by people who claim victim status, I am claiming victim status. It's a straw man, because you are ignoring the argument as I make it in favor of arguing with someone else that's not even on this forum. And it's an irrelevant conclusion, because it doesn't really matter whether or not I'm claiming victim status. It doesn't impact the rest of my argument one bit.

There, you made me type it out. Happy?

No, I don't do much reading directly on the subject. I've mostly watched youtube videos, and developed my own opinion on the subject based on knowledge from sociology, psychology, and human development classes.

 

No. You are incorrect.

I asked because knowing helps me to put a finger on the pulse of the collective state of consciousness.

 

Edit - on second thought, not worth it.

 

Riiiight. OK, so moving on.

I was having some nice conversation with Melial, Mother's Love, etc., and I hope that this conversation hasn't been derailed. That would be a shame.

If anyone was still wondering if male disposability exists, I hope that the examples in this thread have cleared that up. But if you need more convincing, let me know.

I hope that we can move on from the if to the why and how, and some more specifics about the what.

So, why male disposability? Others have already made this point in this thread, so I'll be brief. It's a holdover from a time when every uterus was valuable, and so penises were comparatively expendable.

So what about how? While there are biological drives involved, we encourage it culturally. I think that much of male disposability is an internalized gender role that's instilled during childhood. So I'd like to take a look at that socialization process.

A key factor to male disposability is stoicism. Men don't talk about their feelings, their problems, or their pain. Men don't visit the doctor nearly as often as women. Women tend to "attempt" suicide as a cry for help, and attempted suicides are more common among women. Men make fewer attempts, not crying out for help (stoicism), but actually kill themselves more often (disposability).

The reason that I put the "attempt" in quotes is because I don't believe that many attempted suicides are truly trying. In fact, the phrase is deeply misogynistic. Women attempt suicide more often, but actually kill themselves less often. There are only two reasonable conclusions to draw. Women are either so incompetent that they can't even kill themselves anywhere near as reliably as men can. Or they're not really trying. I take the view that many women who survive suicide "attempts" are actually "crying out for help" in a way that men don't do because it isn't in the male gender role of stoicism to reach out for help.

So where does the stoicism come from? Well there are some cultural rituals, like circumcision. It's pretty well established that painful experiences increase pain thresh hold. Can't get much more painful than having your dick cut. There's a passage in Nelson Mandella's biography in which he describes a "rite of passage" ritual circumcision that was performed on him. All of the boys of a certain age in his village were lined up in a row. Someone came down the line with a knife, circumcising one after the other. The ritual was to stand tall, look straight forward, not flinch or show any sign of pain, and yell "I am a man!" as the cut is performed.

Another big part of the socialization process is the "boy code" discussed by William Pollak (1999). This "boys will be boys" tacit acceptance of bullying and gender conformity forces boys to accept their gender roles. This grin and bear it, walk it off mentality is brutally enforced. Any expression of pain or weakness is punished. Boys' gender roles and stereotypes are more rigidly enforced than girls' (Blakemore, Berenbaum, Liben, 2009). Girls participate in this enforcement by rewarding the exemplars of the male gender role with affection and attention, while participating and often initiating the heart of bullying, which is social ostracism.

So while girls are being taught to express their emotions and reach out for help, boys are being taught to suppress their emotions and ignore their problems.

 

Faelixx

You say it is difficult to get men (I presume all me) to talk about their emotions, but then you say: 'There are men who believe that they are MEN, meat eating, feeling hating, rough and tumble men. That is a prevalent image we have of men in this society.'
So, is it all men or some men - the majority of men?

I agree it is a prevalent image women have of men in certain societies.
Who do you think helped foster that image?
Imho, men and women living in our societies have the freedom to be and say what they want.
There isn't such a demand to fulfill certain roles anymore (as Dave's threads have shown) - but yet, both are still expected to.

It is said: Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars.
Obviously, both are from Earth.
I think it is pointless to try and pigeon-hole men and women as separate entities - as it is clear both can and do, and some don't express their emotions.
It should be about you and your partner.
Why isn't HE expressing his emotions - or more importantly, why isn't he expressing his emotions as you wish him to.

You say it is like the Spanish inquisition - perhaps he also feels like it is the Spanish inquisition.
You say: We want men to tell us how they're feeling, we WANT them to deal with their problems.
Perhaps some people (men and women) don't want to - or feel they are expressing their emotions in other none verbal ways.
Perhaps he feels there is too much pressure to.

 

I find it ironic that you claim to want men to talk about their problems. But when a man (me) actually does so, you complain that I'm complaining. If I were you, I'd be approaching the conversation more like this :

"Oh wow, you're so right! Men don't consider their problems worth talking about. I have a horrible time trying to get my boyfriends to talk to me about their problems. What do you think we could do to make men realize that their problems are worth addressing?"

Again, no, I'm not singling out women for blame. If you read my posts more carefully, you'll see that many of the agents of male socialization are male. The doctors and priests of both sexes who perform circumcision. The boy bullies. The school officials and police of both sexes that let the bullying happen. I haven't said that women are blameless. But I haven't said that they're solely to blame either.

It would be useful if you would provide some examples of my singling out women for blame. If you can't, stop making this straw man argument.

This "battle of the sexes" viewpoint of gender politics is worse than useless, and I disavow it. It's not men vs women. It's gender roles that both sides are pushed into from everyone on both sides.

 

The same reason I'd protect you if I saw you getting your ass beat.

 

Well, that would put you in the firm minority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks"]Reaction To Women Abusing Men In Public - YouTube

163 people go by before anyone interferes.

 

...saying people sometimes fail to live up to an ideal isn't a criticism of its value.

 

if the building was on fire and there were a man and a woman inside and i could save only one i would save the guy.

nope, that's not how it should be. the shielding the gunfire i get, men protect those they love and women just cower there in terror letting the guy die. but in firefighter example, and sinking ship etc, there shouldn't be any 'women and children first'. first come first served, everybody is responsible for their own survival in survival circumstances.

 

Why is that? Personally I have no idea who I'd choose... guess it would depend on the circumstance, but why would you choose a male as a matter of course?

 

i hate to admit it but Freud might have been onto something with his research. i suppose i have to write it off under my sexuality. men are just more congenial to me on average than women. this is how i understand why some heterosexual men would choose a woman under analogous circumstances. it's not really chivalry, it's where our attractions lay. you save the person you like. and in case of two complete strangers all there is to come down to is sexual attraction. doesn't mean i'm sexually attracted to that guy in particular, its just a natural inclination towards an individual that shares something in common with those you like. at least that's the way i understand it.

 

I just throw closest person over my shoulder,yell "WAIT HERE!",whizz down the ladder,drop,zoom back up-"NEXT"! Bloody silly to waste time in a burning building.

 

Going on Meridian's premise I'd save the guy first?

I'd try to help the one that looked least able to save themselves. That's probably why children and women get taken care of before men, who often look more able-bodied.


As far as that video example above...eh...I don't really believe any of those sort of videos are completely candid. I've been involved in a "reality" show and I know how much coaching goes on and how many re-takes there are.

 

Apologies if this point has already been made. It's a long thread and I've not actually read it all the way through. But as I see it, it's actually got nothing to do with misandry and everything to do with evolution and the survival instinct of the species.

Suppose a massive natural disaster leaves you with a surviving population of 6 men and a thousand women (We must assume that they are all in close enough proximity to one another to procreate, obviously ...). You can repopulate the world with that gender mix.

But now try supposing it was the other way about. 6 women and a thousand men. Then what ... ?

 

i'm not saying it applies to everybody. it doesn't. but i know myself, and i tend to look after the people more congenial to me. that's what i'm like. i'm not an objective person.

for the record, i'd cover my male partner from a gunfire too. i don't think this particular example has anything to do with gender. it has everything to do with loving another person.

not to mention gunfire is a tricky thing to begin with, depends on what kind of weapons and bullets are used. one body could just slow the bullet down to end up in the person under him which could actually make it worse for the latter. so it's not as clear cut as the one who shields the other being the savior. without the facts you could be doing more damage with your shielding attempt. since i know this i would actually first look for an adequate place to take cover and get my partner there. that would be the best option. and i hope i will never in my life have to face such a thing. if you don't know the facts you don't really know if you're helping or making it worse by jumping to take the bullets first.

 

Lol, so the rule is save the hot guys first