Thread: Feminism and the Disposable Male

I loved everything she said. If I tried showing that to the girls on social networking sites, I'd probably get blocked....

At least there isn't a white lightsaber on the bottom right corner of the video.

People still talk about feminism..?

It's interesting to think about the way we raise boys and girls differently. We raise girls to cater to their emotions and boys to lock them away. But, at least in my opinion, we toughen boys up not just to deal with the possibility of self sacrifice, but to deal with other boys. The whole male peer-group admonishes sensitivity among themselves and boys often rank each other on a scale of manliness, boys which cannot display enough manliness are ostracized by their peergroup.

This means feminism and male disposability are not just problems among women, but men as well. When choosing a mate, women who may not even believe in classic gender roles are still attracted to callous males that exude the typical behavior described in the video.

There's also a history to consider. Women used to have all the positions of leadership that men are currently holding and in many hunter-gatherer societies that remain in existence, this has not changed. Women bring in something like 80% of the food in these societies. With the advent of farming and necessity for upper body strength to work the plows, men became more valuable as a workforce. Though it's considered that most organized religions are sexist against women, for example claiming only men can achieve Moksha in Hinduism to the point where wives fling themselves on funeral pyres because showing ultimate devotion to their man is a guarantee of being reborn a male, these religions were not necessary founded upon these sexist traditions. They may have been adopted into the religions later. Or in other instances it could be paired with the value of the female, only allowing men to become shaman because the path of the shaman consisted of a risk of going insane and women needed to remain sane enough to breed and raise a family.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

At least there isn't a white lightsaber on the bottom right corner of the video.

Wut

Bottom right of the picture

Sorry, I meant the likes and dislikes ratio. Just trying lighten things up a bit. It's a green light saber =D

What sucks is that most females who are caught up with the whole chivalry thing (even though they mention that it's dead, but still want it from guys), they end up not having successful relationships. They want a guy that's not too nice and not too much of a rebel or jerk. They get to experiment with guys more because it's generally easier for women to do that if they want to experiment.

Guys, at least over here, have to be careful to not go over the top without making the female think that they're being used for practice.

It feels like both genders are bashing each other out lately, and never coming to a competent solution. We take things so seriously sometimes compared to less cynical and more simplified lifestyle back then (when stereotypes were at their peaks).

Anyway, I better escape while I can.

I've never thought about the "women and children first" idea as it applies to me... I've always just "known" that our society says that it is the "proper" thing to do. Now I feel a little ripped off, here!

In my mind, I'm wondering why the video's setting is near a kitchen... *whistles innocently*

I always hated what society labels as "proper." That ideal remains a tradition that will inevitably go into ruin because future generations will try too hard to recycle the same concepts over and over in a different format. And with information being blasted so quickly, the youth will be cognizant of these traditions they try to sustain when they're barely 10, and become bored with it by the time they're "young adults" (which to most is 16 o.O).

I just copied over the title of the video - but the ideas presented aren't really just about feminism. They were inspired by feminist rhetoric though.

Obviously feminism has done a lot of good things - bringing ingrained gender stereotypes to the surface to be re-examined. But now that we've begun to really see past these stereotypes it becomes apparent that males as well as females have suffered from culturally ingrained stereotyping, and there's no organized movement to do anything about it (and in fact, as the video points out, traditional feminism and militant feminism not only take it for granted but even exploit it). I just think it's important to get people thinking about it.

Technically, if feminism didn't "happen," this entire idea of a Disposable Male may have never arisen.

Feminism was a much-needed reaction against sexism as it existed in society at the time. Now we need to move past feminism (which is itself a sexism) to Humanism.

hu·man·ism

noun /ˈ(h)yo͞oməˌnizəm/ 

An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems

A system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual

If you mean Humanism by those definitions, it will most likely bring Feminism back in a new form. To try and emphasize on the potential worth and goodness of human beings and satisfying rudimentary objectives that can lead to genuine solutions is going on a more complicated ambition.

When Humanism starts to be re-examined and rationalized, it leads to more excuses to debate on creating a scale of human equality. Even if we do move past Feminism, the solution will just be a form of of tolerance for equality rather than a genuine acceptance of equality.

We keep rationalizing and trying to justify what is right and wrong, which can lead to excuses, and that leads to corruption. More exceptions start to become apparent, contradicting the primal objective, which leads to more chaos in having things organized.

Perhaps it would be better to label it as mutualism or cooperatism to specify non-preferential values in regard to gender rather than religious tradition.

Oh, when I said Humanism I was just using it as a non gender-biased alternative to Feminism - one that doesn't include male-bashing as part of its agenda either implicitly or explicitly. I remember once seeing an outraged feminist on TV talking about the statistics of women who were raped every year in prisons. Not once did she mention how many males are raped in the same situation. Is that not important?

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

I loved everything she said. If I tried showing that to the girls on social networking sites, I'd probably get blocked....

I don't see why you shouldn't post it. If some girls get offended by the video, then they probably aren't worth your time anyway.

This is a great video, very well said. It's sad that a lot of self-proclaimed "anti-feminist" videos that pop up tend to have an angry, misogynistic spin on it, along with a lot of "men's rights" groups. However, it's clear that this woman wants TRUE equality, for both sexes.

I've always had a hard time understanding why there's such intense, lethal vitriol against men who express their emotions, do things or act in ways considered feminine, be gay, etc. People certainly don't care quite as much about lesbians or masculine acting women. I've always assumed that it's because masculinity is preferred over femininity, so it's better for boys to be boys and girls to be boys too. Like, if we think boys acting like girls is the worst thing in the whole world, then wouldn't we think BEING a girl is the worst thing in the whole world?

However, I once saw an experiment in a news report about a man who would ride his bike in traffic, and be treated worse by surrounding traffic than if he put on a medium length blonde wig. Of course there's loads of other instances and studies like that, such as onlookers not caring or even cheering on a woman who beats her man in public.

I guess it's due to a natural selection process, like what she talked about, and the males who weren't as manly and able to provide in harsh times died off, didn't mate, or were lynched. It was crucial that men were strong.

There are some contradictions here, though. The attitude of telling boys to suck it up and letting girls vent their emotions is more of a conservative, traditional mindset, and some people (mostly guys I assume) are decrying the attitude to let men express their emotions as "The Feminization of Men". Like men naturally aren't that emotional, and that feminism is forcing men to be more like women. So, which is it? Whether you're for or against men's emotions being respected more, people like to blame feminism for both sides.

I don't see why you shouldn't post it. If some girls get offended by the video, then they probably aren't worth your time anyway.

If they're constantly saying what guys shouldn't expect in a woman if they cannot meet their expectations as well, then yeah, you're right.

But it really does suck having to wait for a person worth our time (for both males and females) because even the ones that do not look worthy right now are just currently jumping on the bandwagon that the other doesn't like.

Most have the right intentions, but how they act them out is something they need to be shifted to the right path.

I guess it's due to a natural selection process, like what she talked about, and the males who weren't as manly and able to provide in harsh times died off, didn't mate, or were lynched. It was crucial that men were strong.

Sometimes I wonder if being a "man" is more than just being able to provide. Because from what I see, younger guys who try to be a "man," it seems that they focus more on not trying to be single-minded when going after a partner rather than just being useful and doing their best to create viable offspring.

Like men naturally aren't that emotional, and that feminism is forcing men to be more like women.

Well, I wouldn't say forcing to be more like women, it can only seem forced if guys are too focused on maintaining the pretentious facade of the "alpha male" or whatever.

I don't think being emotional is an attribute that would usually be redirected towards defining a woman. I think men are just as emotional as women, it's just that during their childhood, they're taught to bottle it up, and those who want them to trap it inside, yes they have a conservative mindset. (and should at least accept the fact that their intentions will not always be passed on)

Why is is that? Maybe it's just the fear that their offspring may not go towards the "acceptable" and "proper" gender, which would make them think that their efforts have gone in vain (for the sake of producing viable offspring and passing on their genes that is).

I think a male can have a feminine side without it being labeled as something that would degrade their invisible "manly-man-macho" composition they have to keep up with.

It's just that people generally think that if men do become "more like women", they'll think of it as them possibly changing their beliefs that defined them on creating viable offspring, rather than thinking that they can accept their feminine side a PART of their whole being rather than incorporating it as another entity they will have to sustain (which would just be another role that they will fail to keep up with).

Instead of trying to keep up with the "manly" status and add some new fad of being "feminine" at the same time (what I meant by that is constantly changing facades to where both do not define their core personality) , they should just accept that it was already a part of them in the first place, it's just that people's influence and the times they were in made those feelings repressed.

This also would make people assume that this would make men weak. But accepting other parts of your whole being that were repressed can make a male (in my opinion) more attractive, stronger, and respected as a potential partner because they can experience the phenomenon of being fragile, courageous, open-minded, charismatic, and even cynical all at once without having to wear a cheap and flaccid facade.

To have a calculated personality (rather than one that's bottled up) that still allows emotions to evolve and come into manifestation.

And the people who have the conservative mindset, it's like have the mindset that human babies from storks (and that won't last long when it's obviously apparent that if people use Humanism as an alternative to dilute the bias, they will have to move past the idea of Feminism as something a male shouldn't incorporate as a part of themselves).

Whether you're for or against men's emotions being respected more, people like to blame feminism for both sides.

I'm for men's emotions being respected more. But at the same time, not emphasizing this to where there isn't an equal balance of respect for males and females.

I enjoyed watching that video. She obviously put a lot of thought into the issue and has some very interesting points. Just like ThePreserver, I had never really thought about the whole "women and children first" thing before. I don't think much about differences in gender/race/etc and how they effect things in our society. I always knew our methods of living in the past were still deeply entrenched in the human psyche and that a lot of the old habits and rituals of our ancestors had survived to this day. Like how males are viewed as the strong protectors, and must give of themselves so that women and children can live in comfort and safety. But I didn't realise the massive impact it had until I heard the points raised in this video about male disposability. (Why doesn't the spell checker recognise disposability as a word, btw?)

When you do give the topic some attention, it's quite fascinating to see how prominent a role this plays in society. We really do seem to take it for granted that the man is the last priority in times of hardship or disaster. And when it is discussed, you can't help but question it. I do hope at some point we'll be able to have real equality between men and women, and it should be interesting to see how our general views about it evolve in the future.

I think we're trying to attribute this to mere cultural evolution, or at least mostly cultural evolution here. She hit the nail on the head when she talked about females being the limiting factor in reproduction (a basic principle of socioecology), and she did say something about how this may be innate, but I think she misread the implications from then on.

She talked about how humanity went through some brutal times when the survival of the species depended on everyone agreeing that men were disposable and women were valuable. She's right in a figurative sense, but this is not a decision, it is automatic. It is a psychological trait implanted by natural selection. Females are the limiting factor in reproduction, so more genes get passed on by those who evolve psychological mechanisms to favor women, those genes spread in the gene pool, yada yada yada.

So, it seems like we're assuming too much intentionality. When you realize that there is no intentionality, unfortunately you can't reason with what's left. You can rant about people following these basic simple-logic reproductive mandates to absurd conclusions, but they always will.

Actually I think she fully understand everything you said Indie - I know I understood all of that from watching the video. It does go deeper than cultural programming.

Certainly no-one is suggesting that in the future we should train women to sacrifice themselves in the case of a burning building to save men. In fact she wasn't suggesting any particular course of action, and neither was I. Like I said, I just think it's important that people realize this.

It points out that feminism in many of its aims is off-target. It has always assumed that the stereotypes and biases are only cultural. But now we see that they run deeper than that. I don't see any way of changing this particular bias. So, as she points out, it is quite wrong of feminism to ignore the life and death sacrifices men have to be prepared to make at a moment's notice and pretend like protecting women and children is somehow demeaning to them when in reality it's biological necessity and men are programmed by something much deeper than society to make those sacrifices. Women now enjoy equal rights with men in all social aspects (nearly anyway, and gaining ground all the time) and meanwhile, men can't jettison this biological programming that makes them disposable.

So, is it right for women to feel so justified in telling men what assholes they've always been and how much they owe women, when it turns out much of this is actually entirely beyond men's control?

Imagine a burning building with children screaming inside, and a man and woman are standing in front of it. If the woman runs in and saves them (or dies trying) and the man doesn't - he will forever be branded a coward. If the man runs in and the woman stands waiting, nobody would even think of branding her a coward.

I'm not saying it's wrong and needs to be changed - I don't think it can be changed. I just think this kind of factor needs to be taken into consideration and the aims of feminism need to be expanded. Rather than concentrate only on the needs and problems of women, it's time to concentrate on the needs and problems of both genders that have gone unrecognized until now. Feminism was a good start, and has largely accomplished its goals, but the men still suffer in silence.

Regardless of the evolutionary origins of behaviours, we are obviously past those types of concerns now. The fact is, men won't truly respect women until women truly respect men. So we may be waiting a long, long time.

So in other words...

"NO! I won't apologize until SHE does!"

Most of the stuff you think are build into our species can probably be changed a great deal depending on our culture and how we raise our children. We are not running around hitting things with sticks anymore, so there is no reason for much of this.

I think the example given about a man and woman standing outside of a burning build is a good one. In the ideal society the first reaction for the man and woman should be to both run in together. Or if the situation is far to dangerous, they neither goes in. After all if you go into a burning building your chances of survival greatly improve if you have someone with you. In fact that applies to almost anything.

Today, in the US at least, there is little men need to protect woman from, that a woman couldn't also do, or at least help with. When you think of boat sinking, woman and children first shouldn't be an issue, we should have another boats for everyone to get away safely. When it comes to war, men shouldn't be going off to war instead of woman. Instead we should be striving for not having war to begin with.

When you talk about equality, you don't want to punish the people with the better position. You don't bring people down to the same levels, you bring people up to the same levels.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Feminism was a good start, and has largely accomplished its goals

Where? America? Western civilization? Developed countries? What about other parts of the world? I just hear that a lot and would like qualifiers/specifics.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So in other words...

"NO! I won't apologize until SHE does!"

Except, I have nothing to apologize for. I have never personally treated women with disrespect, however I have been shown disrespect by certain women.