Difference between revisions of "Male disposability"
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Male disposability has a basis in evolutionary theory. When the females of a species invest significantly more energy in to gestation than males, as is the case for humans, then the size of the next generation is largely constrained by the number of fertile females. As a result of this a species can generally tolerate the loss of males more easily than the loss of females. The loss of females will constrain the size of the next generation, the loss of males will constrain genetic diversity. |
Male disposability has a basis in evolutionary theory. When the females of a species invest significantly more energy in to gestation than males, as is the case for humans, then the size of the next generation is largely constrained by the number of fertile females. As a result of this a species can generally tolerate the loss of males more easily than the loss of females. The loss of females will constrain the size of the next generation, the loss of males will constrain genetic diversity. |
||
| + | Male disposability *does not* imply that societies will wantonly throw away men without a care. Male disposability does imply that given the choice between losing a male or losing a female societies will generally prefer to lose males. The loss of both is damaging but the loss of the female was more damaging, at least until recently. |
||
| ⚫ | We humans are now a special case. The Earth carries |
||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | We humans are now a special case. The Earth carries eight billion people today and could be carrying 10 or 11 billion within a few decades. We no longer need the ability to rapidly recover numbers, thus any presumed bias towards male disposability that existed in the past no longer needs to apply. We've won the survival race. |
||
Male disposability is an artifact of the past and that's where it should stay. |
Male disposability is an artifact of the past and that's where it should stay. |
||
| + | Male disposability manifests in society in many ways. Examples include: |
||
| − | == Canned Response == |
||
| + | |||
| + | * Men being drafted against their will to fight and die in wars |
||
| + | * Men being expected to risk their own life and safety to protect women, even women they don't know |
||
| + | ** [[Women and children first]] is still observed on some ship evacuations |
||
| + | * Tolerance for [[male genital mutilation]] even in societies where [[female genital mutilation]] is rejected |
||
| + | |||
| + | == See Also == |
||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Gynocentrism]] |
||
| + | |||
| + | == External Links == |
||
| + | |||
| + | * [https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/defining-demonstrating-understanding-male-disposability Because It's 2015 Blog]<ref>https://archive.ph/W09Pl</ref> |
||
| + | == References == |
||
| − | With a population of 7.2 billion (expected to top out at 10-11 billion within a few decades) we no longer need the ability to replace numbers quickly. As such female reproductive capacity no longer needs to be protected in order to ensure survival. |
||
| + | [[Category:Featured Articles]] |
||
| − | Men and women today can be equally disposable. Society hasn't quite caught up yet but that's the reality of a planet carrying billions of people. |
||
| + | [[Category:Glossary]] |
||
Latest revision as of 08:48, 7 January 2024
Male disposability is the notion that men and boys should surrender their life for the greater good of the community and in particular to facilitate the survival of women and girls. The MRM rejects male disposability in the modern world. A world in which males are not disposable may look very different to the world of today.
Male disposability has a basis in evolutionary theory. When the females of a species invest significantly more energy in to gestation than males, as is the case for humans, then the size of the next generation is largely constrained by the number of fertile females. As a result of this a species can generally tolerate the loss of males more easily than the loss of females. The loss of females will constrain the size of the next generation, the loss of males will constrain genetic diversity.
Male disposability *does not* imply that societies will wantonly throw away men without a care. Male disposability does imply that given the choice between losing a male or losing a female societies will generally prefer to lose males. The loss of both is damaging but the loss of the female was more damaging, at least until recently.
We humans are now a special case. The Earth carries eight billion people today and could be carrying 10 or 11 billion within a few decades. We no longer need the ability to rapidly recover numbers, thus any presumed bias towards male disposability that existed in the past no longer needs to apply. We've won the survival race.
Male disposability is an artifact of the past and that's where it should stay.
Male disposability manifests in society in many ways. Examples include:
- Men being drafted against their will to fight and die in wars
- Men being expected to risk their own life and safety to protect women, even women they don't know
- Women and children first is still observed on some ship evacuations
- Tolerance for male genital mutilation even in societies where female genital mutilation is rejected