Hypothesis, recent, Social Science

Considering the Male Disposability Hypothesis

In her analysis “Women and Genocide in Rwanda,” the former Rwandan politician Aloysia Inyumba stated that “The genocide in Rwanda is a far-reaching tragedy that has taken a particularly hard toll on women. They now comprise 70 percent of the population, since the genocide chiefly exterminated the male population.”

In a 1998 speech delivered before a domestic violence conference in El Salvador, former US senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”

These statements are illustrative of a wider trend of “male disposability.”

What is Male Disposability?

“Male disposability” describes the tendency to be less concerned about the safety and well-being of men than of women. This night sound surprising given the emphasis in contemporary Western discourse on the oppression of women by men. How is it possible that societies built by men have come to consider their well-being as less important? But embedded in this kind of question are simplistic assumptions that flatten a good deal of complexity.

A 2016 study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science found that people are more willing to sacrifice men than women in a time of crisis and that they are more willing to inflict harm on men than on women. In 2017, an attempt to replicate the Milgram experiment in Poland provided some (inconclusive) evidence that people are more willing to deliver severe electric shocks to men than to women:

“It is worth remarking,” write the authors, “that although the number of people refusing to carry out the commands of the experimenter was three times greater when the student [the person receiving the ‘shock’] was a woman, the small sample size does not allow us to draw strong conclusions.”

A 2000 study found that among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women tend to receive longer sentences than drivers who kill men. Another study found that, in Texas in 1991, offenders who victimized females received longer sentences than those who victimized males. There is at least some evidence that “women and children first” is a principle still employed during rescue efforts in natural disaster zones. Some social scientists have also noted that the media is more likely to focus on female victims than male victims. This is especially true for white female victims.

It is interesting to consider the above in light of the following: Men are more likely to be murdered than women and, in some cases, they are more likely to be physically assaulted. In most countries, men are more likely to die from suicide, they are more likely to be homeless, they’re more likely to be killed by the police, and they are more likely to work in dangerous jobs. Some countries also specifically criminalize male homosexuality, and male homosexuals seem to be more likely to be victims of hate crimes. The wartime rape and sexual abuse of men are also believed to be more prevalent than most people realize.

Despite all this, the media appear to focus overwhelmingly on violence against women and whole international organizations and movements have been founded to end violence against women and girls. You will be incredibly hard-pressed to find similar resources when it comes to ending violence against men. Of course, all this doesn’t mean that men are always more disposable than women. There are indeed circumstances in which women are treated as more disposable, such as the disproportionate abortion of female fetuses in countries like China and India. However, although this complicates the Male Disposability Hypothesis, it does not invalidate it.

Why Violence against Men Is Often Ignored

When pressured to admit that violence against men is largely normalized and ignored compared to violence against women, many respond by trying to justify the imbalance. For example, some contend that violence against women is “gendered” and should therefore be taken more seriously. However, a lot of violence against men is also gender-based. During the Rwandan genocide, it was mainly men and boys who were targeted for murder because of their gender. The gendered nature of the killings was largely downplayed, however. During the Srebrenica massacre, men and teenage boys accounted for the vast majority of the victims. Sexual abuse against men is also believed by many social theorists to be an attack on masculinity intended to demoralize victims by making them feel incapable of fulfilling the male role. Even if we were to accept that violence against men is not gendered, that would not justify ignoring the more common and widespread victimization of men and boys.

A related argument holds that because men are usually victimized by other men, it is less important than violence inflicted on men and women arbitrarily. For some reason this is not considered “gendered” violence, because it is assumed that men cannot target other men for being men. This line of thinking is highly unsatisfactory. Men tend to be quite competitive with other men and there is at least some evidence that women like women more than men like other men. When a man rapes or castrates an enemy during wartime, it is not just a random act of violence, it is a direct attack on masculinity.

A third excuse, usually not explicitly stated but strongly implied, is that men somehow “deserve” to be victimized. After all, if men are the majority of the perpetrators, then it is somehow just that they get a taste of their own medicine. In a 2004 post about the violence in and around the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez, political scientist Adam Jones quoted an article by Debbie Nathan in the Texas Observer as follows: “Slaughtered, butchered and scorched male corpses are found far more frequently than women’s bodies are. [But] few seem surprised, much less outraged, by this male-on-male carnage.” Drawing on the arguments above, Jones went on:

The standard operating procedure in feminist scholarship and activism dictates that when a complex social phenomenon like murder is addressed, certain rules must be followed. Briefly put, trends that evoke concern and sympathy for women—in this case, the sharp rise in women’s murder rates in Ciudad Juárez—must be carefully separated out and presented in isolation. Data that threaten to offset or contextualize the portrait, perhaps to the detriment of an emphasis on female victims, must be ignored or suppressed. Hence the invisibility of the nine-tenths of Juárez’s murder victims who are male. […] This feminist strategy reflects, and exploits, cultural convictions about men that are nearly universal. Men are seen as the “natural” victims of homicidal killing, for two main reasons. In part, this is because in most cases, men’s killers are other men—and we all know that “boys will be boys.” Second, men are viewed as implicated victims.

In other words, men are generally perceived as responsible for their own victimization on some level. Women, on the other hand, are largely innocent so violence committed against them is a more serious crime. This is merely a doctrine of collective guilt and punishment.

What Are the Causes?

The question is, why does society frequently appear to care more about the well-being of women?

Social theorists might argue that men are expected by society to be more resilient and self-reliant so they’re often viewed as lesser victims. Women, on the other hand, are perceived as comparatively weak and vulnerable and therefore in greater need of protection, in the same way that adults feel protective towards children. However, feminists would no doubt counter that this attitude is simply evidence of benevolent sexism and female infantilization.

Others speculate that humans—especially males—evolved to be more protective of women. At least one study conducted by evolutionary psychologists has found that men are more willing to make the anti-utilitarian choice to let three members of the same sex die in order to save one member of the opposite sex, especially when there are fewer potential sexual partners. This suggests that men’s willingness to sacrifice men to save women may be tied to their need for sexual and reproductive success. Scientist David Brin argues that women in many ways physically resemble children more than men do (neoteny) and that they evolved that way to inspire protective impulses in men. However, this doesn’t explain the findings of other studies which suggest that women are also more willing to sacrifice men. Another possible explanation is that both men and women evolved to be protective of women because one man can impregnate several women, while a woman will usually only bear one child at a time, so it makes sense for societies to keep women safe so they can reproduce.

It’s hard to say which theory is more accurate or if all of them have some basis in truth. There is shockingly little research on the subject. Researching male victims is not compelling precisely because men are disposable “lesser victims” and male disposability tends to be reinforced by this tendency to ignore the phenomenon.

Is It Possible to Eliminate Male Disposability?

It is not possible to say for sure given the available data whether male disposability is partially evolved or purely the result of socialization. Even if we were to assume that male disposability is, on some level, instinctual, it doesn’t mean that society cannot minimize it. The real question is, do we want to eliminate male disposability? Do we want to send more women into combat? Do we want to have more women in dangerous jobs? Do we want to focus on male and female victims equally? I think this kind of equality is a laudable goal, but it will surely meet some resistance from society. Men themselves are often hesitant to see themselves as victims, traditionalists (male and female) would resist such a challenge to gender norms, and many feminists would resist the idea that male victims should receive greater attention.

What Does Male Disposability Mean for Feminism?

Male disposability does pose a challenge to certain feminist assumptions, but it doesn’t inherently have to be an argument against feminism. There have been cases in the past where feminists have been hostile to attempts to address male victimization, mostly because they fear that shifting the focus toward male victims will further marginalize female victims of male violence.

However, to generalize about all feminist theory in this way would be unfair. Many prominent feminists, like bell hooks, have argued that what they call “patriarchy” can be harmful to men. It is also generally accepted by feminists that male victims of sexual abuse can be marginalized under the gendered norms they oppose. Feminist attitudes towards male issues can be far from perfect and criticisms of feminism by some men’s rights activists are not without merit. But I believe it is both possible and necessary to find some common ground. It is hard to argue that feminism is not needed when one looks at the victimization and oppression of women worldwide. However, oppression is not a zero-sum affair—addressing the oppression of women does not require us to disregard the victimization of men.


Maria Kouloglou is a sociology student interested in women’s and men’s rights. You can follow her on Twitter @MairGr


  1. Etiamsi omnes says

    As a male who has the misfortune of living in Feministan (that’s just north of New England, USA) I wholeheartedly welcome such essays as this.

    • Ken Ansdersen says

      You need to leave this Canadian Feministan, I think, and move to a place (there are so many in this world) where maleness rules, where men can be the pure manly men God wanted them to be, enjoying their maleness and masculinity apart from women and their influences and can just enjoy being men together and doing the many manly things that men like to do together.

      Nuff said?

      • Memetic Tribe says

        @ken anderson

        Greenwich Village?

      • Etiamsi omnes says

        People on Quillette are lucky to have a well of wisdom such as you telling them what they ought to do with their lives…

      • Its amazing that such a thoughtful article can have such moronic comments underneath it.

        • David says

          Welcome to the internet, where the greatest minds of our time can meet and trade ideas with the intellectual equivalent, well, my bank account – meaning it’s in the negative.

      • Rev. Wazoo! says

        Ken Anderson
        Actually not enuff said,
        What’s with the homophobia?
        You seem to have a problem with men “being men together and doing the many manly things that men like to do together.”

        If that’s what a bunch of men want to do, that’s their business just as it is for women. Do you have a problem with women being together and doing the many womanly things that women like to do together? . Sneering at them and implying that
        Gay Lesbian Bi behavior is below-par seems very regressive in 2019.

        • Memetic Tribe says

          So you uphold the group indentity structure of the progressive stack? Gay men hold a special place at very top of the progressive stack, and are large part of the new social framework: that your indentity as an individual is secondary to your representation of a specialized victim group.

          This structure is playing out right now as Steve Crowder gets banned from YouTube for gay jokes, while the gay target of his jokes – Carlos Maza – continues on in his protected status, often calling for violence against conservatives without repercussion.

          So I implore you to get over the gay jokes. Did it oppress you when I said the words “Greenwich village”? It remains one the most expensive zip codes in the US, and largely gay. I wasn’t aware that million dollar brownstones on Christopher Street equated to oppression.

    • Jerjapan says

      Comments like this give conservatives a bad name. Aim for the nuance shown in the article in your comments rather than parroting idiotic Fox talking points.

  2. Ken Anderrson says

    As a man, I get so sad that nobody cares about my feelings anymore. Used to be, if your were a man (who could prove it by being able to display a protuberant organ of generation) you got some credibility, but these days having a penis has become a badge of shame.

    Well folks, despite this alleged handicap, I am not “disposable”, and you will have to continue to reckon with my supposedly “incorrect” opinions until the Feminazis drag my weener out of my cold dead hands.

    • Memetic Tribe says

      I would be careful with those protuberant displays. That’ll gitya arrested and put on watch list pretty quick.

      But it’s “tits out” every day for the poor oppressed city dwelling fems.

      • Ken Anddersohn says

        Don’t I know it. Local police here always on my case for some damn thing.

        Actually, would have appreciated more daily “tits out” action from the fems in NYC where I used to live. Bunch of lesbo bitches in my opinion, and I don’t mean that in any derogatory way.

      • Bill Miller says

        No Problems if you like young boys, are identifying as a woman or you are gay.

    • @Ken – Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

      Excellent tactic for diverting meaningful discussion while contributing nothing of value. I’m sure glad we have people like you around to cogently argue an opposing viewpoint with such intellectual aplomb. It’s very thought-provoking and certainly helps people rethink their basic assumptions. Heckuva job there Ken!

      Shorter: F-off troll.

    • Shatterface says

      As a man I don’t express my feelings unless my team loses or I scratch my car.

    • TarsTarkas says

      Ken Anderson:
      A protuberant organ arising at the junction of the nether limbs is now considered a valuable asset if you are that weird sociologically derived taxonomic creature called a ‘transwoman’.

      • David says

        For the lay-person out there, he means Chicks-With-Dicks.

  3. KD says

    Look, you have a small circle of men at the top. They treat themselves well, unless there is a civil war. The women are basically chattel, treated pretty well but less well than the circle. Then there are the other men, who are either tools or disposable or disposable tools.

    If you want to look at it from a feminist perspective, you look at the top, and you look how the top is disproportionately male. Also, pay attention to the way that women are functionally chattel to the big men.

    If you want to look at it from a meninist perspective, you look at the bottom, and how the bottom is disproportionately male.

    But humans are only slightly more egalitarian than chimps. If you want feminism, get born a honey bee.

    • augustine says

      Men battle it out and women benefit from the outcome in reproductive success and material comforts. When you can convince such women that this dynamic should be abandoned in favor of feminist goals, then you can start rebuilding the world.

      • Peter from Oz says

        ”Men battle it out and women benefit from the outcome in reproductive success and material comforts.”
        Not true. I have never battled another man over a woman in my life. In fact the reverse has always happened, women have battled over me.
        In many countries today, and even in the west until the 19th century, most marriages were either arranged or occurred because of the proximity of the bride and groom to each other.

        • Rev. Wazoo! says

          Peter from Oz
          You’re not necessarily at odds here. One needn’t battle over a woman for the women to benefit from male competition. Good grades in. High school and maybe distinguishing yourself in sports attracts women just as attending a good uni and getting a good job after.

          These are competitions not only against men of course, but competitions the winners of which attract women. A single, 26 Yr old man with good degree, good job and house to match (or ability to get one) shows you’ve won many competitions and likely to win more.

          This is what is meant by women benefit from male competition and the observation isn’t negated by the fact that today women participate in many of the same competitions. A man must now compete with women too

          Most women aren’t so attracted to men lower down the socisl/economic scale though many exceptions exist. Sadly, many of those exceptions are “corrected” after the children get to school age and she trades up which is easier to do when she can bring child suppory/alimony/house to the match.

          They fight over you because you’ve shown you’re worth fighting over by winni. G many previous fights.

          • Peter from Oz says

            ”Most women aren’t so attracted to men lower down the socisl/economic scale though many exceptions exist.” To the extent that is true I’d say it is the same with men.
            People tend to be attracted to people with whom they share interests and tastes. In some cases, both men and women may instead be allured by physical attractiveness and sex appeal .

        • augustine says

          As the Rev. extrapolated here, I meant competition between men as well as literal battles. If you don’t have something good to offer a woman that makes you a better choice (for her specifically) then she will not likely consider you suitable as a mate, father or provider.

          A book I cited in another comment months ago on Quillette is subtitled “How Females Choose their Mates”. The basic premise is that females, including human females, do the choosing when it comes to which male will pair up with her precious egg. This choice is simply more imporant to women than men. Material comfort is part of the dance.

  4. Stanley Ketchel says

    “US senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” I guess since they men are dead, they no longer suffer. This reminds me of the old saw, “World To End Tomorrow: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”

    • E. Olson says

      Amazing that Hillary (and Inyumba) could make such “poor women” statements with a straight face, and not be ridiculed for them. Men suffer often gruesome painful deaths in war, which they fight because they frequently believe or are told they are protecting the women folk back home, but only a true feminist could believe the surviving women are the real victims of war. Of course if you believe in heaven you might think the dead soldiers are in paradise, but how many rampant feminists believe in anything besides feminism? And even if the man manages to survive the carnage of the battlefield, they can look forward to getting an earful from the woman folk explaining just how hard life on the home front was during the war.

      • Nakatomi Plaza says

        You are amazingly out of touch with reality. You’re concerned that our soldiers aren’t getting enough recognition? We treat them like heroes. We worship the military in this country. Go ahead and question the military and see how quickly you get your ass handed to you in America. And you’re complaining about feminists?

        And for a big, bad right-wing nut you ought to be giving our service people a little more credit. We have an all-voluntary army and a population that hasn’t actively opposed a war in fifteen years (little good that did). I really have no ideas where you get your bizarre ideas.

        • Peter from Oz says

          Logic isn’t really your strongpoint , is it NP?
          The fact that Americans lionise the military, doesn’t mean that Clinton’s statement isn’t a load of bollocks. Nobody doubts that women who lose loved ones are victims of war. But the fact is that they are not the main victims or the only victims as Clinton implied. There are also a lot of male victims who survive: fathers and sons of the military personnel killed in war. But Clinton ignores them.

        • Rev. Wazoo! says

          Nice technique trying to change the topic from the death of male soldiers to the glorification of their deaths. But the topic remains and is only underlined by your observation: military deaths are glorified precisely because they spare women death.

          Perhaps it’s time to institute a sexgneutral draft as the best way of ending imperialist/colonialist wars of oppression. If women were required to participate they’d quickly vote out those who push such wars.

          Don’t you agree that would be the quick result and be good for the (majority female) nation?

        • peanut gallery says

          Both the left and right in the US use .mil bodies as political tools and dispose of them. The “honor” that America gives it’s fallen is gross. If they really honored them, they’d stop putting them in stupid pointless wars. Yet both sides don’t care. Actions speak louder than words, they say they “honor”:them. In action they’re all just cogs in a racket of war-making both Democrats and Republicans have benefited from. It’s embarrassing and shameful. I watched plenty of caskets parade into a C-130 to get “honored.” Get fucked. The American people aren’t worth dying for. Including you. I’d like to ship all of congress to Syria with an AK and tell them “good luck!” Few things make me more irate than the false honor given to soldiers. “You’re a hero! Go die from some dumb cause that benefits Lockheed Martin!”

          • Peter from Oz says

            SUrely the fact that people died for their country still means they deserve to be honoured. The motives of others have nothing to do with it.

        • JD says

          @NP You’re right…the next time I pass a group of vets huddled under an overpass in Portland, I’ll make sure to stop and tell them that they’ve really had quite enough recognition from society and we need to move on to more important matters like closing the gender pay gap or ensuring that all women have free and unfettered access to late term abortion.

          • @JD

            I’ll join you and then we can talk about how to end all pointless wars. There would be a whole lot less veterans without wars.

    • Peter Dawson says

      Thank you, that’s what I was thinking – you put it very well.

  5. AJ says

    The article is right to identify male disposability but is blinkered in only focusing on this. It is not simply that the death of men is discounted with respect to women but all male disadvanatage and suffffering is discounted compared to women.

    Yes those who kill women get longer sentences than those that kill men but equally as important male criminals of all types whatever the crime get substantially longer sentences than female criminals who commit the same crime. There is little or no effort to improve boys dismal educational performance compared to girls yet ubiquitous campaigns to improve girls performance in STEM. There are many more examples.

    the point is that it is not just male disposability, or even a lack of empathy for men and boys but almost a complete failure to perceive male disadvantage, suffering or death at all.

    The author writes that: <I?’It is hard to argue that feminism is not needed when one looks at the victimization and oppression of women worldwide. ‘
    This is an illusion brought about by a cynical use of our innate tendancy to protect and support women and ignore and accept male suffering. Some women are oppressed and victimised but the victimisation of men is far more prevalent. Feminists scholars and organisations have known for decades that men are disadvanatged in many areas from violence, criminal sentences, health, education, yet they continue to promote the myth of male privilige. Feminisim has gone so far in promoting the idea of women as vicitims and men as vicitimisers that it has damaged women themselves undermining the ability for women to be confident and independant.

    It is difficult to see anything positive in feminisim.

    • OleK says


      While you may be right, I believe the author is deliberate in her tone as a strategy to possibly get feminists to actually listen to her points and not dismiss out of hand. I don’t know if it’s an exact named tactic, but it reminds me about a communication strategy Jonathan Heidt talks about when communicating with those of opposing political ideologies.

    • @AJ

      How many little boys are sold to much older women to be child grooms?
      How many men worldwide are denied the opportunity to choose their own brides?
      How many men worldwide are denied education the moment they hit puberty, since they must get married and have children, their only role in life?
      How many men around the world wear a mandatory hijab/burqah?
      How many men are in prison in Saudi Arabia for the right to get a job, travel, vote, without the permission of the women in the family?
      How many men in Kenya are denied ownership of land due to cultural pressures?

      Should I go on?

      • Shawn T says

        Susanna. Nobody would argue your list, however the average American feminist is far more concerned with man-speading than anything you’ve cited. Your list invites intersectional conflict. How can you claim any culture other than Western is by definition beautiful while ignoring that culture’s deepest flaws? Better to pretend the flaws don’t exist and focus on horrors like man-splaining. Same problems exist when looking at LGTB issues worldwide (with a list similar to your own). Trump is mocked for trying to focus global attention on the most basic of human rights. Go figure. In the end, though, everyone has their list and everyone feels theirs is important, AJ included. I suppose one list doesn’t negate another, but I would agree some lists deserve more focus and work than others. Perhaps you could simply say AJ has a point (along with everyone else with a list), but those problems can wait until we have done something with the more fundamental issues.

        • @ShawnT

          Of course AJ has a valid point, I was merely objecting to his statement that men are far more victimized than women. It smacks like Intersectional Oppression Olympics.

      • John TO says

        How many little boys world wide are pressed into military service?
        How many men worldwide are denied any opportunity to get married and have a family because they are enslaved?
        How many men worldwide are denied education because they are enslaved into a life of hard labour and forced military service since they were little boys?
        How many men around the world are forced to wear a military uniform?
        How many men are in prison (or were castrated/executed) in Saudi Arabia for the crime of speaking with or having relations with a “higher born” woman?
        How many men in Kenya die of forced labour, compulsory military service, and genital mutilation?

        Your blindness to the suffering of men illustrate exactly what the author points to as male disposability. Learn a little empathy.

        • Tulklas says

          @ John TO

          To further your point I’ll add this:

          How many little boys are sold to much older men to be child grooms?

          • Greg Allan says

            Western military policy in Afghanistan was to enable the sex trafficking of boys AKA Bacha Bazi.

        • @ Jon TO

          I was responding to this comment made by AJ: “Some women are oppressed and victimised but the victimisation of men is far more prevalent.”

          It’s funny to me because men have far more choices around the world than women. As far as your comment about slavery, you seem to forget women are enslaved too. I think you’re the pot calling the kettle black.

      • To answer some of your questions.

        “How many men worldwide are denied the opportunity to choose their own brides?” – pretty much gender neutral, and I’m surprised you raise that. Organised marriages are just that.

        “How many men worldwide are denied education the moment they hit puberty, since they must get married and have children, their only role in life?” – interesting you raised the issue of ‘life’; life is literally the passage of genes which in a bi-gender species requires sex and commitment to the child. You might as well ask ‘how many men are denied a free life because their only means to ensnare a mating partner is to either work like a slave or self educate like a slave to prove their worthiness as a partner. This is ‘life’. And really, empirically, not many women are literally ‘denied education the moment they hit puberty’. That does not happen.

        Most of the rest of your strawwoman argument seems aimed at Islamic culture. Half of my family is Muslim but that is not how they see things.

        • @Roland Paterson-Jones

          Either you are highly ignorant of the facts of the world or you wish the world to be the way you think it should be. Let’s look at just one country, Afganistan:

          “Harmful gender norms mean that, in many families, boys’ education is prioritized over girls’, or girls’ education is seen as wholly undesirable or acceptable only for a few years before puberty. In a country where a third of girls marry before age 18, child marriage forces many girls out of education. Under Afghan law, the minimum age of marriage for girls is 16, or 15 with the permission of the girl’s father or a judge. In practice, the law is rarely enforced, so even earlier marriages occur. The consequences of child marriage are deeply harmful, and they include girls dropping out or being excluded from education. Other harms from child marriage include serious health risks—including death—to girls and their babies due to early pregnancy. Girls who marry as children are also more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women who marry later.”


        • @Roland Paterson-Jones,

          I wonder why you think I’m aiming my arguments at Islamic culture. But then again, if the shoe fits.

          • Stephanie says

            Susanna, most of your claims are directed at the Muslim world, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is horrible. However, addressing the barbarism of Islamic culture is a topic all on its own, and it would be nice to talk sometimes about grievances outside that regressive bubble.

            Recall that even Prophet Muhammad treated men as disposable: the more his soldiers died, the more “wives” he could acquire. To some extent it is part and parcel of the same problem.

          • @Stephanie,

            If most of the claims are directed at the Muslim world, perhaps it’s because of their abysmal record of both human rights and women’s rights. I wasn’t thinking only about Islam, though. Lots of African nations have similar issues, not to mention Asian nations. Latin America is only slightly better, sometimes worse (inequality hides often behind the thin veneer of religious practices)

      • Defenstrator says

        How many women are drafted to fight in wars?
        How many women do the most dangerous jobs?
        How many women are slaughtered by invaders?

        I could go on, but I’m not really interested in the intellectually weak game of proclaiming my group a victim in order to win.

        • It's Not A Contest says

          From the article: “oppression is not a zero-sum affair.”

          Since nobody on this thread understood what those words mean, here’s the translation: There’s plenty of oppression to go around. Acknowledging your struggles does not require me to ignore the struggles of others.

          • peanut gallery says

            Indeed. The urge to treat it like some sort of victimology race-to-the-bottom is strong. Men should not respond to the Feminine Supremacist nature of modern feminism with the same political tactic. We should work together, not build ourselves up by putting the other sex down.

        • @Defenstrator

          We may not be drafted into wars, but every woman is closest to death while giving birth. Average Roman women lived till 25, most died in childbirth (a woman who gave birth to three children was empancipated from needing a male guardian, it was that difficult to accomplish) and it’s still the case on lot of developing world. Child brides have children before their bodies are ready, leading to medical complications and often early death.

          This isn’t a competition, but it seems men really like to make it one, while they forget all the sacrifices women have done historically and continue to do so in modern time in most parts of the world. A few shrill feminists do not change the facts.

          • a bee ee? says

            Right, and how many die in childbirth today?

          • Okaro says

            First what happened in Rome is not relevant. Second your statistics are bogus. Most women did not die in child birth. Before modern medicine the death rate was about one in a hundred births. If women could not give birth more than three children humans would have become extinct. Infant mortality was so high.

          • rnt says


            “…,most died in childbirth… ”

            Eve shouldn’t have eaten that apple. Just sayin’

          • AJ says

            @Susanna Krizo
            “Average Roman women lived till 25, most died in childbirth (a woman who gave birth to three children was empancipated from needing a male guardian, it was that difficult to accomplish) and it’s still the case on lot of developing world.

            This is nonsense. On average women must give birth to more than two children in order to maintain a stable population (because of deaths before sexual maturity) therefore three births must be common place.

            In fact Wikipedia says that estimated Roman female life expectancies are higher than estimated roman male life expectancies.

          • Nonsense? Really? Then explain to me you all why the majority of Roman women died between ages 15-29? Unless there was some superbug running around killing young women, the one and only thing these women had in common was that they were married and had children, as marriage was mandatory and all Roman women were expected to have children.

        • @Defenstrator

          How many men have babies?
          How many years did men try to prevent women from becoming firefighters, police officers, from joining the army?
          LOTS of women are slaughtered by invaders! My ancestors the Vikings pillaged and plundered plenty and they didn’t keep all the women, only the young ones.

      • Anne Elbet says

        I totally agree; these are excellent questions!

      • Allison says

        How many American and European feminists stand up for the abuse of woman world-wide? Answer – almost none. They excuse it all away by comparing an American woman’s desire to wear make up to look good for men as the equivalent to all that you mentioned. They can also do this from the safety of any kind of perch they’re already on. I’ve not heard of many who actually leave this country and go confront and fight for women’s rights in places where they have almost none.

      • Howard May says

        Whataboutism. Your comments don’t negate one whit the author’s point. Despite the sad facts you present. More fair to say that there’s quite a difference between western values and those elsewhere, mainly Islamic and non western.

      • a bee ee? says

        How many men are dead because of the activities cited in the article?

      • AJ says

        The problems with yout list is that none of it applies in any western country. The mistreatment of women in the developing world is used to argue women in the developed world are mistreated. There are two flaws in this argument first that mistreatment of women outside the west cannot be used in any way as an argument taht women in teh west are mistreated or oppressed. Secondly that the mistreatment of the women concerned is not compared to teh equivalent men but is implictly against western men. This is hard and is going to vary from place to place but if you look at life expectancy or the numbers who suffer from violent death it is very clear that men and boys are treated far worse than girls and in fact women and girls are priviliged compared to men and boys even in those countries were women are treated harshly and for which there are discriminatory laws..

        Your post is an example of what I posted about, if you do not see any male suffering however severe but only see disadvantages and suffering of women then naturally the world appears to be biased agaainst women.

        What stands out is how even in the west shockingly callous and abusive behaviour towards boys is tolerated which woudl never be tolerated if applied to women. Consider how FGM is treated.

        • karen straughan says

          “This is hard and is going to vary from place to place but if you look at life expectancy or the numbers who suffer from violent death it is very clear that men and boys”

          I was once told on a website that in every majority Muslim country, women have lower life expectancy than men do.

          I went and looked, which was indeed hard, since the lists for men and women were on separate pages on the website I found, and the countries sorted differently. Took a lot of clicking, typing and calculating, but when I was done, I found the opposite is the case. In every Muslim country, women live longer than men.

          More than this, the lower the life expectancy is generally, the wider the gap tends to become. Syria, where general life expectancy is lowest (not even 60), women outlive men by a whopping 9 years.

        • Photondancer says

          Shifting the goalposts. You claimed that worldwide, victimisation of men is far more prevalent and Susanna rightly pointed out that this is false.

          • henry k. says

            It’s as if you don’t realize you are in a comment exchange with one of the leading demystifiers of this information. You should attend to what Karen is saying, she has done the research. Done it herself.

        • @AJ

          Life expectancy has nothing to do how men and women are treated. Women live longer in all societies.

          I pointed out the discrimination women experience in the developing world since the hypothesis here is that men suffer more than women on a global level. This is blatantly untrue. But it’s interesting that you brought this point up since the constant bleeting on this thread is how feminists in the developed countries don’t care about women in developinng nations. And yet, we also hear the argument that women have it so much better all around the world. So my conclusion is that the whole argument here is about western men who feel left behind (as some commentators pointed out that they don’t care an iota what happens to women around the world). The paltable hatred toward feminism is a sign that we’re not really talking about all men here. We’re talking only about western men who up to about 100 years had unfettered control of home, church, and state alike, and who must now share this power with women and it’s not going so well, not at least if we look at most of the comments here. But I have also a growing suspicion that most of the hatred is directed to ex-girlfriends and wives, not necesssarily women in general. There’s so much talk about how women get everything in divorce and how they can just up and leave. Personal tragedies are of course tragic, but they shouldn’t blind us to facts.

        • @Oh, and AJ, Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source of information about Ancient Rome. Go to the library and read a book on the subject. I can recommend about two dozen, if you’re interested.

        • John Robinson says

          You should try on your own shoe. If western women can’t be compared to non-western women than western men can’t be compared to non-western men. The former have it far easier than the latter. How many western men have been conscripted for war in the last 40 years?

      • karen straughan says

        “How many little boys are sold to much older women to be child grooms?”

        95% of sex workers in Afghanistan are underage boys.

        “How many men worldwide are denied the opportunity to choose their own brides?”

        Pretty much as many as there are women, given that arranged marriages are arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. In fact, In India, a large minority of “rape” complaints are brought by women who were promised marriage by a consensual sexual partner, but the man’s parents refuse to give him permission to marry.

        “How many men worldwide are denied education the moment they hit puberty,”

        95%+ of child laborers in the middle east are boys. The vast majority of child abductees worldwide are boys. 280 Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram, spurring an international outcry. Prior to that more than 10,000 boys were abducted by Boko Haram and forced into child soldiery, and hundreds were murdered in their dorms, and no one cared.

        Currently, 31 million girls and 27 million boys of elementary school age are not in school. I have seen this number quoted by mainstream media as 58 million girls.

        There are currently a small handful of countries that have fewer female university students than male. The vast majority of countries, including those we consider backwards, have more female university students than male.

        “since they must get married and have children, their only role in life?”

        Since they must financially support their mother and sisters if their father has died. And since they must financially support their wives and children if they’re able to marry.

        “How many men around the world wear a mandatory hijab/burqah?”

        How many men around the world wear garments that interfere with manual labor? Men can get away with wearing clothing that only covers their bodies from waist to knee! Yeah, because men who wear those clothes are menial laborers working for a living, sometimes against their consent.

        Meanwhile, in THOSE SAME COUNTRIES, high status men cover almost their entire bodies, just as women are expected to.



        “How many men are in prison in Saudi Arabia for the right to get a job, travel, vote, without the permission of the women in the family?”

        How many women are in prison in Saudi Arabia for failing to pay mahr, or to support their wives and children, or their mother and sisters?

        “How many men in Kenya are denied ownership of land due to cultural pressures?”

        How many women in Kenya are dragged out of their homes and forcibly circumcised in public despite it not being their tribal practice?

        See? I can cherry pick stuff too.

        • @Karen,

          Yes, you certainly know how, and by doing so you once again proved that feminism isn’t the problem, that men aren’t victimized more than women, since for every category you can add a female, such as Thai girls being sold to prostitution, Indian girls being killed in acid attacks by angry suitors, you can talk about Kenyan girls being circumcised, you can talk about little girls working in factories all over the world, about women being excluded due to periods from normal life. Again, this isn’t a competition, it’s about the recognition that globally women are discriminated more than men and there is ample proof it. The discrimination is codified into religions and laws alike. To say it isn’t true just because men suffer too is like saying, “Oh, 90% of your body got burnt, but only 70% of mine, but since I can’t feel your pain, I hurt more than you do.”

      • peanut gallery says

        It’s not a competition. Does one bad turn deserve another? Can you spare no empathy outside your tribe? The point of the information in the article is context. Everyone has problems. Besides, first world feminists don’t care about 3rd world women. It’s clear they they think the solution of the negative aspects of maleness is to feminize men and not to encourage positive masculine traits. (the actual solution)

      • How many little boys are sold to much older women to be child grooms?
        Not many as they are kidnapped to be kid soldiers.

        How many men worldwide are denied the opportunity to choose their own brides?
        Almost the same amount as women, as the parents choose the bride too. That’s why they are called arranged marriages…

        How many men worldwide are denied education the moment they hit puberty, since they >must get married and have children, their only role in life?
        I would say the same, on average, as in those places education is essentially a waste of time for them. So women start getting kids and men start working in agriculture, mining, factories…

        How many men around the world wear a mandatory hijab/burqah?
        That’s true, not hijab/burka for men. That’s why some people oppose islam and reject open borders… feminist not, by the way, as they are starting to use hijab as a revolutionary symbol.

        How many men are in prison in Saudi Arabia for the right to get a job, travel, vote, without >the permission of the women in the family?
        Again, similar issue as before. It is a particularity of a religion. But that’s a problem of a country, that doesn’t have anything close to civil rights. So we might want to know first how is to be living as a man in that country. But it would be just in a country.

        How many men in Kenya are denied ownership of land due to cultural pressures?
        In Kenya probably men are killed in land disputes. Also, they are the first ones to be killed when some militia arrives or some war breaks havoc. I would not want to be a woman in that country, but because I would not want to be a man either.

        Take off your pink glasses. You just demonstrated the commenter was totally right.

        Well done.

      • White men don’t control what happens in those countries anymore in no small part because feminists deconstructed colonialism. Are white men responsible for things that are not in control of?

      • rnt says


        Re: your examples, those are the problems of the women who live in that culture. Not my problem. And a reason why I don’t want that culture imported into the US. Let the US feminazis go over and fix it.

      • Roe V. Amazon says

        Susanna Krizo,

        Feminists want the cream, but don’t want to get up early to milk the cow.

        However, your list is spot on and terrible, but that list is the result of of the actions of men who are probably not white or Christian. However, when human rights violations need correcting you can bet your sweet ass they’ll send a white American male from a fly-over-state halfway around the world to fix the problem who is probably a Christian. Did a lot of women soldiers die in the Battle of Mogadishu? Nope, not one died. Those helicopters sent to kill Osama bin Laden were full of what? Yep, white American males. I could do this all fucking day…

        Modern day feminists seek careers with power and privilege and say it’s about equality That’s bullshit or they’d be welding, laying brick, driving garbage trucks, and dying in war in equal numbers. Over 80% of the deaths in the War on Terror are white American men even though they only make up 32% of the population of the USA and less than 20% of NATO.

        So on this D-Day, I give a shout out to all those white men who died on Normandy beach and the Rosie the Rivoters who knew how to use a pipe wrench.


        • Well, hello there, @Roe V. Amazon, thank you for the compliment, but you forget one thing. You can’t send white men to fix human rights violations when they were born in country that refuses to sign the UN Human Rights Declaration crafted by an American woman, Eleanor Roosevelt. When American men finally see the light and see the beauty of the declaration created by a woman, then we talk.

          • Roe V. Amazon says

            I’m well aware of UN Resolution 217. Which, by the way, was drafted by a committee which was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. She didn’t draft it herself. The visual of Eleanor Roosevelt drafting the Human Rights Declaration in a Paris pied-a-terre by candlelight while her lesbian lover looks over from afar is way more interesting and makes for a great movie where Kathy Bates please Eleanor, but it didn’t happen that way.

            However, Eleanor Roosevelt chaired a committee which drafted Resolution 217 which 48 countries adopted that have caused the world to be policed by UN missions that have disposed of the lives of men which is the entire genesis of the article we are discussing.

            Now, the question remains…Should men be viewed as disposable? As a military brat whose father’s best friend was killed by a Sandanistan rebel (New York Times January 13, 1984 front page above-the-fold if you’re curious), the disposability factor doesn’t feel very good.


        • John Robinson says

          I’m pretty sure that the majority of deaths in the “war on terror” are brown men but continue to wallow in your sty white male victimhood.

  6. Carl says

    No, the question is not why “society” cares more about the well-being of women. “Society” does not have cares or thoughts. It is an abstraction that refers to the totality of a given set of people and their patterns of relations over time. I’d reject this counter argument to feminism for the same reason I’d reject the feminist argument: neither social scientists nor advocates have the authority to preach to us what we ought to value. It probably is the case that humans, in our own time and place or in others, do see men as more disposable than women. I think one could plausibly argue that not only do people have the right to see it this way, but that this view is in fact based in evolution. Look, we calculate replacement-level fertility by children born per woman. To paraphrase a cloying pop song from a couple of decades ago, women and children are our future.

    • D.B. Cooper says

      I find myself, somewhat sympathetic to this view.

      • D.B. Cooper says

        Anyone who’s ever been around cattle knows you need about 1 bull (male) for every 20-30 cows (females). I get the sense that human evolution has rightly came to the same conclusion. While this can be unfortunate for those bulls who don’t make the cut, but for the ones who do, they can be quite impressive.

        • rnt says

          @DB Cooper

          Harems for the winners!

          The reality these days is that 80% of women are chasing the top 20% of men.

    • David of Kirkland says

      Shouldn’t that mean only fertile women attempting to conceive are valuable? After menopause, if infertile, or using contraceptives should value them no more.

      • David of Kirkland, yes, from a species’ survival perspective only fertile women are ‘valuable’. Ditto men who can usefully deposit active sperm.

        Human society, on the other hand has never been exactly that pure individual animal intent. In fact we humans have conquered the earth exactly because we embrace our intellect.

        Of course, for humans to continue to flourish, and you can use your own interpretation of flourishment, we do actually have to continue to make babies.

        It would of course be great for the earth as a whole if we, as a whole, stopped flourishing so damn obviously.

        But our DNA has not yet caught up with that observation. As individuals we are still most motivated, often through sublimation, to procreate.

        Is it valuable? Not really now that human influence is way too dominant as a species.

        But that’s how life itself rolls.

      • michael farr says

        The value of non breeders, especially grandmothers and grandfathers is inestimable. They have survived. They have the accumulated knowledge of the group, Conception is easy, survival is the tricky bit.

      • Daz says

        D of K

        That would probably be true if women advertised the fact that they were fertile and ready. But their potential would be enough to make them less disposable maybe. Or the fact that they once bore children would still hold some esteem in the minds of men.

      • Jesse says

        David, that’s a common misconception that people have about evolutionary psychology. Just because most human psychology can be explained by selective pressures—though rarely proved to be caused by the same—doesn’t mean that individual human beings consciously follow the logic underpinning those pressures. This error in thinking is similar to the misconception that evolution is a purposeful agent that moves toward goals. Natural selection has no agency, and, similarly, organisms that have evolved certain behaviors and psychological traits are by no means consciously aware of why they have them.

        So, while you’re right that a woman who is infertile has even less reproductive value to the group than does a random man, that in no way weakens the evopsych theory that human groups value women more than they value men. Assuming the theory were correct, the underlying psychological mechanism would be much deeper than the level of conscious reasoning. Indeed, it’s hard to see how natural selection could even operate at that level. Expecting that any deep-seated psychological bias toward valuing women over men should vanish in cases of infertile women is like expecting that the craving for fatty foods should vanish whenever they exist in over abundance. That’s just not how evolution works.

    • Daz says

      Well said Carl, spot on. You point out, as did the author, that all groups are in some way oppressed or considered disposable. Just that men are more so.

      But not as fascinating as the tennis match of the above commenter’s though.

  7. Lydia says

    Guns are the great equalizer. As the crusty old former drill sergeant now gun range instructor told me (after my near perfect first lesson): Women often make great shots. They usually follow my instructions to the letter. They know they don’t know anything about shooting and want to learn. Men, not so much. Lol. one of the greatest snipers of all time was a Russian woman in the 20th century during world War II.

    Chris Cuomo recently tussled on social media with an NRA mom who carries. He didn’t know she cc trained after a brutal rape. Equalizing.

    I have tons of respect for the men and women of the IDF.

    Men are not disposable. We need them desperately. Together, we can take on the criminals of both genders and protect the vulnerable.

    • Morgan Foster says


      “one of the greatest snipers of all time was a Russian woman in the 20th century during world War II”

      As far as I can tell, the Soviet Army’s propaganda machine is the only original source for this story.

      It may be true. It may not be.

      Any history of the war that depends on Soviet propaganda as an original source has to be approached with caution.

      • Geofiz says

        @ Morgan

        Not true. Tania Chernova was interviewed at length by Craig who wrote Enemy at the Gates. There is more controversy about the famous duel between Zaitzev and the German sniper but Tania was the real deal. She was not one of the greatest snipers by a long shot but she had 23 confirmed kills . She was also in love with Zaitzev.

        Russian women also served in combat as pilots. The flew old biplanes at night They would cut their engine when they neared enemy lines so the Germans would not hear them coming. then drop their
        Bombs They were known as the Night Witches

        Carlos Hathcock and Vassily Zaitzev were the two greatest sniper in modern history.

        • Morgan Foster says


          Lydia says: “one of the greatest snipers of all time”.

          I say: “It may be true. It may not be.”

          You say: “she was not the greatest sniper by a long shot.” (I see what you did there.)

          Looking at my post again, I can see how somebody might interpret that to mean I thought she might not have been a sniper at all.

          Not my intention. That said, who, I wonder, confirmed her 23 kills?

    • TarsTarkas says

      Lydia: To quote the famous saying:

      ‘God may have made Man and Woman, but Smith & Wesson made them equal’.

      No greater example of that than the Chris Cuomo kerfuffle.

      I wish the movies and TV’s stopped showing females manhandling big brawny males, it’s not only ludicrously unreal but provides dangerous examples to the naive. There’s a reason why hospital admissions for domestic violence are so skewed towards females; regardless who started the fight, the men are far more likely to win them.

    • David of Kirkland says

      The video recorder/phone is the new great equalizer. Violence begets violence and rarely solves much.

      • Shamrock says

        “Violence begets violence and rarely solves much.”

        I generally agree with this as far as starting violence goes but it is very useful in response to violence. Consider bouncers, prison officers and police as well as defense of one’s self and family. Sometimes it is necessary.

  8. Max York says

    Only radical feminists claim that men are “disposable”, and indeed, harmful and thus in need of eradication.
    In the real world (at least in the United States) , not all women are feminists, and of those who are feminists, more are “equity” feminists than radical feminists. Equity feminists do not hate men and they do not view them as “disposable”, nor do they want to extinguish them.
    Men and women who choose to do dangerous work, whether in the private sector or in the military, are equally “disposable”, in that they take greater risks of harm or death, which risks sometimes become reality.
    If men had any sense, they would embrace equity feminism, and thereby isolate radical feminism and expose it for what it is.

    • Ken Andorsehn says

      I am a man! I am not disposable! I am not an easily disposed of equivalent of a used tampon!

      I am a real human being with thoughts and feelings that is crying to for love and understanding and needs a woman to fulfill my special sexual needs.

    • Corey Christensen says

      Care to provide numbers on equity feminist vs radical feminism? From where I stand I only see feminists of the later type.

    • augustine says

      Is equity a goal then?
      Where is the equity where women choose not to do dangerous work in fields overwhelmingly dominated by men? Jobs like construction, manufacturing, sanitation, street repair, etc. If you are advocating that men and women should both have equal freedom to choose, are you accepting when the outcome in military or civilian venues remains male-dominated?

      • C. G. says

        Do men want women in dangerous jobs with heavy lifting? (Or even non-dangerous jobs that require greater physical strength.) Women are physically weaker, and if there is a woman on the job, how much of her work is going to fall to men because most women can’t physically keep up?

  9. Farris says

    From an evolutionary biology point of view male disposability makes perfect sense. In exchange for exclusive breeding the male serves as the protector for the incapacitated pregnant female. This notion of protector is hard wired. Whether it is toxic or not is another debate. The dichotomy feminism faces is both objecting to the male assumption of protector and likewise objecting when the protector role goes unfulfilled.

    • Amen. It is tragically fascinating that senior academics are not aware of evolutionary psychology. In this instance, Azar Gat’s book War in Human Civilization, and Martin Daly and Margo Wilson’s Homicide would be particularly appropriate I would say.

    • David of Kirkland says

      We don’t lead lives of evolutionary nature. All lives are disposable as every life ends.
      We just need Liberty and Equal Protection under the law. All else is just the reality that life can be hard, that some people suck, and some are awesome.

    • Defenstrator says

      Slander instead of argument. Typical of the small and ignorant who stop by to rant at people who want to think.

      • Heike says

        You shouldn’t be deterred by such comments. What they mean is a feminist has read the piece, heard facts that she can’t refute and that made her feel yucky inside, and feels the need to project this yucky feeling onto someone else. Thus the calling others racist.

        These unhinged not-arguments are a good sign that the article did something well.

  10. Jeremy H says

    Another fine example of this is the Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women in Canada which, after 3 years and $92 million, is holding its closing ceremonies as I type this comment. The very fact that we had such a gender-focused investigation when rates violence against indigenous males are much higher (murder rates 3x) is almost as ridiculous as its conclusion: an active genocidal intent by colonialist Canadians is the culprit.

    Even a google search specifically for “canada indigenous violence vs men” produces almost exclusively results directly about violence to aboriginal women rather than men.

    • Fran says

      I was going to make just this comment. As I recall, there was a proposal to include males in the Inquiry, but it was axed by the indigenous peoples themselves.

      nb. Being pregnant or lactating, or having a toddler in tow is a huge metabolic load. Just consider the vast proportion of women who quit breast feeding in the first 6 weeks – its work. Women actually need protection when reproducing. Doing it alone on welfare produces predictably bad results.#

      • Rev. Wazoo! says

        But why were the indigenous peoples themselves allowed to ax adding men to the inquiry? If they’d decided only right-handers were to be included, would the inquiry have accepted that restriction

    • Richard Aubrey says

      Problem is that the perps were likely indigenous men. If they were white men, we’d have heard about it. But indigenous men….. Suggesting that would be racist. So we have the Unknown Murderer.

  11. Lefti says

    Typo: This night sound surprising given the emphasis, I presume this should be This might sound

  12. Outraged says

    The explanation is quite simple, and I wonder why the author missed it.

    The powerful classes realized they needed people to fight their wars and plow their lands and extract raw materials from their mines, and so on, and that men were much better able to do this than women. They therefore needed to concoct a narrative about what a “real man” should be like in order to get men to do their dirty work.

    These things still need to be done today, and so the narrative persists.

    • Corey Christensen says

      Ah yes, we are all brainwashed by the hidden amorphous ruling elite. What an original take.

      • Outraged says

        I didn’t claim it was original, only that it was true. Do you actually have a real argument to make against it?

        • AJ says

          The idea that the ruling elite control society like puppet masters presupposes the elites have similar objectives, cooperate together and have the ability to manipulate society to the ends they desire. I don’t believe any of these are true especially the ability to manipulate society. The effects of any given intervention is difficult if not impossible to predict which is why governments struggle. The disposability of men has a very clear and straightforward evolutionary psychology explanation.

          The fact that the powerful is mostly men says very little about gender discrimination or oppression as they are such a tiny proportion of the population. If you look at the very bottom of society, the homeless or the imprisoned this is also almost entirely male.

    • Dzoldzaya says

      I would argue against this explanation, mainly because we see similar views both of ‘being a real man’ and of female vulnerability in traditional, egalitarian societies. It’s evident that this narrative has often been perpetuated by powerful classes, but it’s definitely not a complete explanation; in fact, the ideal of a ‘real man’ in western culture (think action heroes with a problem with authority) often seems to go against what the powerful classes would wish of an obedient citizen.

    • Tobias Olds says

      I’m not sure you can say with certainty that this is all simply a cultural narrative concocted by elites, but I find the idea that they would try to target individual’s insecurities – like men’s insecurities about being not masculine enough – to help manipulate them towards their ends.
      And in the minds of the elites it wasn’t even manipulation – it was simply them getting men to do their duty.

  13. dirk says

    Some years ago, there was an article in my newspaper ” Modern technology has made males largely superfluous”. I wrote a letter to the editor (accepted, in the time that this letter section still was in the hands of a man): -I read it, and was rather amused, but just imagine, the message of the article had been the opposite! Females superfluous!-
    No sir, that can’t be, of course. And, I think, everybody, where-ever, in the East or the West, will heartily agree. And, it’s well known also among primatologists.

  14. Nice article, but it ignores the obvious motivation for male disposability. The simple facts of human reproduction make females more important than males for the survival of the species. One man can impregnate many women, but women still give birth to usually but a single offspring who, for almost all of human history had a low probability of surviving to sexual maturity. Add to that the historical rate of death for women in childbirth and it becomes altogether clear why men are the disposable sex. So, so much of our behavior is simply an expression of our evolved biology. Of course we’re at a stage when ensuring the survival of more and more human offspring isn’t exactly Job 1, but we’re still acting like it is.

    • Asenath Waite says

      @Robert Franklin

      That is discussed in the article.

  15. Asenath Waite says

    That homelessness graphic really captures the whole concept of feminism perfectly.

    • Heike says

      Especially what it’s trying to “disprove”. As in, we all know that homeless people are always men. But some are women! is the surprise twist.

      For worthless men, if all homeless men disappeared tomorrow, would anyone miss them? I doubt it. They’re actually worse than worthless, they have negative value.

      • Asenath Waite says


        You’ve got the suffering of the three grey, generic, interchangeable, expendable men weighed against the much more important suffering of the one colorful, individualized woman that we must direct all of our attention and effort towards helping. Pretty much sums up the ethos.

    • Donnerhauser says

      I remember how there was some public event about “number of women killed in the UK” somewhere and they had a outline for each woman.

      Someone pointed out more men were killed each year than women, yet they received little to not attention.

      This irony is that all of this reinforces gender dynamic, because it portrays men as the norm. Think about it – violence against men is seen as normal, it’s just what happens. Violence against women is seen as unusual. Men being homeless is normal, women being homeless is abnormal. It’s like how Helen Pluckrose pointed out that a lot of feminists use men as the standard of equality (women being only seen as equal when they can act like men), not realising that this reinforces the “men as the cultural ideal” concept feminists like to criticise.

      To make things clear I’m not criticisng women or anything here; in my experience feminists (many of whom are also men) are the ones downplaying any of men’s suffering (while claiming they actually care, which they must do so very quietly since I so very rarely hear anything about it) and most women don’t think of themselves as victims at all, indeed they get offended by the notion. And of course men can be stubborn; we tend to have a very “I shall just take it” attitude, likely born by our evolutionary past where men were expected to be tough and just man through the pain because this was evolutionary advantageous, so men tend to not really care about things like this or at least not as much as we perhaps should do.

      However, it is the chutzpah of feminists to ignore this that pisses me off so much.

      • staticnoise says

        That’s really insightful. I always thought that this striving for equality was back asswards. We take the best things about women and devalue them, like the ability to generate a new human being for one, and the tender and loving way they care about people and relationships, and then attempt to make them more like men, and not necessarily the best parts of the male of the species. Women are amazing, why do we want to make them into men – who can be amazing, but…

        I think of someone like Chelsea Handler and her crass crudeness and think this is what women wanted?

  16. Lightning Rose says

    The take-home message here is the difference between “The Narrative” and reality.

  17. E. Olson says

    “The real question is, do we want to eliminate male disposability? Do we want to send more women into combat? Do we want to have more women in dangerous jobs?”

    Interesting questions in a thought provoking essay. Given how few children most western women are having in recent times, the cultural/genetic instinct to “save the women first” or more accurately save fertile wombs can certainly be argued to be an obsolete concept. Yet having and raising children is the only thing that women can consistently do better than men, which means achieving “equality” in “bad” aspects of life such as combat or dangerous jobs is not only going to be dangerous for women, but likely to kill a lot of men.

    There just aren’t enough women with the physical strength, stamina, and competitive instinct to survive combat with men, so any army with lots of women is going to get beat by any army with lots of men, and when the men win they are going to rape the women and kill the wimpy men who let their women fight for them. Furthermore the inability of a 140 lb. woman with 20% body fat to pull her wounded 200 lb male comrade out of a fire-fight (or burning tank) is certainly going to add to male combat deaths. Similar bad results and need for dangerous to male bailouts would also be likely with any dangerous jobs requiring physical strength and stamina (logging, commercial fishing, firefighting, police, mining, construction, trash collection, etc). Economically, such a move would likely also be a negative, since putting more women into dangerous jobs will almost certainly mean having to pay them more to get out of their current climate controlled offices, and having to hire two of them to replace one man in order to have the necessary strength.

    Thus perhaps the more reasonable move would simply be for feminists to show some respect for the role the men play in keeping society functioning, because doing most of those dangerous jobs are what keeps society functioning.

    • Outraged says

      “having and raising children is the only thing that women can consistently do better than men”


    • hail to none says

      @E. Olson: combat increasingly relies on technology, not only in the form of high-powered weapons but also drones. Brute strength is less important than it used to be, and not important at all for a number of positions in the military.

      • E. Olson says

        Hail to None – drones will never replace boots on the ground, but even if you are correct, which gender do you think will develop and fix most of those high technology weapons?

        The following link offers a nice summary of how effective women are in the grunt work that makes up the most serious boots on the ground military work.


        • Bill says

          Amen, @E. Olson. The Drone evangelists are like those of the early tank and air power. A drone cannot take and hold land anymore than a drone or manned aircraft. Drones are force multipliers but will never supplant the boot.

      • Canadian Moxie says

        Same is true for mining. It no longer requires brute strength.

    • Nox says

      “Thus perhaps the more reasonable move would simply be for feminists to show some respect for the role the men play in keeping society functioning, because doing most of those dangerous jobs are what keeps society functioning.”

      Not simple and not going to happen.

    • Joana George says

      “There just aren’t enough women with the physical strength, stamina, and competitive instinct to survive combat with men, so any army with lots of women is going to get beat by any army with lots of men,..”

      E., I would like to add that what you said also explains why there is a perceived difference between the murder of men and the murder of women. Men are generally perceived as a threat. Especially if we look back long enough, if you win a war with another tribe it would make sense to massacre their men if you win. It’s the best way to ensure you won’t have to fight another war in the near future. Killing men has an underlying layer of self-defense. Women tend to be perceived as harmless as far as war (and other forms of life-threatening conflict) goes so killing them requires a higher level of cruelty.

      Just a side thought exercise: Would the murder of an 85 year old woman be perceived as worse than the murder of an 85 year old man?

      • E. Olson says

        Joana – Interesting question I did a quick search online for “murder of elderly woman” and got lots of headline hits, but far, far fewer when I did a search for “murder of elderly man”, which would suggest that killing old women sells more newspapers or generates more clicks.

    • Robin says


      “Yet having and raising children is the only thing that women can consistently do better than men”

      The statistics on single mothers vs single fathers say otherwise. Also bear in mind that every single case of mass murder in the USA recently was done by a single mother raised perpetrator.

      Western militaries are imperial militaries. They don’t fight in their home countries… not since WWII. If they ever did, that would be WWIII and life as we know it on this planet would be over. So any western army being defeated would have no impact on their home country… there would be no ‘killing of wimpy men’. (A classical trad con shaming statement).

      You go really off the rails with your last comment. “…the more reasonable move would simply be for feminists to show some respect for the role the men play in keeping society functioning…”????

      Have you ever met a feminist? A feminist show (cough, gasp) respect for men? Any feminist showing respect for men would be cast out of that cult pretty quickly! Membership in that society means being completely immersed in Patriarchy theory and the pure undiluted rage-fest against men. Take some time to read what their leading ‘intellectuals’ have to say… you don’t have to look far to find calls for mass castration, mass murder, infanticide of male babies, etc. Feminists/feminism has no respect for anything male.

      • E. Olson says

        Robin – You are correct that lots of females make terrible mothers, but I have yet to meet a biological male who can gestate a baby or breast feed.

        Yes I have met some feminists, and it would no doubt be a difficult task to get them to show respect for men, but I still think it would be easier than getting them to work in equal numbers and equal effectiveness in dark dank mines, Alaskan fishing boats, garbage trucks, fire fighting, construction, or combat.

        • Robin says

          @ E. Olson

          I have yet to see a female gestate a baby without a male genetic contribution. There is no mother without the father. Your biological point while noted has nothing to do with wether men or women make better parents.

          Difficult to get a feminist to show respect? It would be easier to pass a camel through an eye of a needle…. In any case respect needs to be earned, not granted. Feminists have declared men the enemy and there is no way you are going grovel or simp your way back into their good graces. You see to them, the only good man is the castrated man. The whimpering cuckold who does exactly has he is told is the man they say they want.

          Now for those of us who have self-respect that will not work. I personally can’t think of anything more disgusting than being respected by a feminist. No Sir! I much rather embrace their hatred for men and throw it right back at them. I show them the exact same level of empathy they show me. I also don’t support a society that caters to their needs and simultaneously throws me under the bus.

          This is actually a very moral stand I am taking. Reciprocity and empathy are the pillars of morality and feminists have neither. By treating them the way they treat others you are helping them to evolve into a moral human being. Think of it as tough love and remember that constantly apologizing for female ingratitude and hatred hasn’t worked so far… it’s only made things worse. The White Knight in me stood down some time ago and now more and more Knights are doing the same. One day we will become a legion and then things will become interesting…. we might even move towards a more egalitarian society.

          • Dano says

            Eh, that’s a bit like saying the arcade game won’t produce gameplay if you don’t put a quarter in it. That’s about the appropriate price ratio (one arcade cabinet vs $0.25) for the reproductive marketplace, when it comes to time, energy, intensity, work, risk, risk per sexual encounter, missed work, pain, hormonal difficulty, and a deficit in fitness. A man who will stick around providing pays somewhat in other ways for those services but it’s a huge ask… just look at the prices of paid surrogacy, and that might be the cheapest kind. This is why women universally (if unequally) share the power of sexual selection and choice and are largely unused to rejection (can you imagine mining a hunk of gold ore that took sooo much risk but the intended buyer won’t pay $0.25 for it? what a diss compared to “I don’t care about your quarter”), while men have the opposed burden of having to impress and do and gain status and display wealth a lot more, to be “chosen,” usually after “playing the numbers game.” Anyway, yeah women do have gendered qualities and inclinations that often lend towards parenting quality… that is not to say anything bad about single fathers but they are a group highly skewed positive by extreme self-selection (including the need to make it all happen while decently employed — as alluded welfare is birth control to them). Single mothers not as much. The safest of all calls is that both is better, but in your favor probably a father’s gendered advantages are less obvious / respected these days.

      • Defenstrator says

        The killing of weak men is not a trad con shamming comment. It is what has happened throughout history. And if you are brutally pragmatic it makes perfect sense. It means there is no one to fight back against the invaders and the next generation of children will come from them, automatically forcing the women to accept them or be against their own offspring.

        • Greg Allan says

          The typical genocide always consists of killing all the males and exiling or colonising the females.

        • Robin says


          The killing of defeated men is what has happened throughout history. By the North American native standard, the men died horribly. If you reread the OP’s comment he said:

          ” so any army with lots of women is going to get beat by any army with lots of men, and when the men win they are going to rape the women and kill the wimpy men who let their women fight for them. ”

          The OP is saying that if you don’t fight then the women will and you will lose and die because you are a wimp. Sounds like shaming to me!

          Problem with that statement is that it completely ignores the modern context. You’d think he lived in a medieval city state! There is no scenario of any invasion of any modern Western state that doesn’t involve mushroom clouds… there are plenty of scenarios where western armies fight overseas. The defeat of an army overseas does not necessarily mean defeat at home. There will be no killing of ‘wimpy’ men because there will be no army there to kill them. Ergo, calling men a ‘wimp’ is just traditional conservative shaming.

          You bring up the next generation of children which I don’t think has anything to do with this topic. Read up on trends in Western population growth or lack thereof… there is no next generation! All Western states are below population replacement rates. It would seem a lot of women are foregoing motherhood in favor of career. Hence the non-existent invading army will not be forcing non-existent mothers to choose between them and their non-existent children.

      • Howard May says

        Unless you’re in the IDF. And women are drafted just like men. Their combat roles are more limited for all the reasons pointed out above.

        • Robin says

          @Howard May

          I remember many years ago sitting in a lecture given by an Israeli officer. At the Q&A session a women raised her hand and asked him his opinion on whether women should be in the combat arms.

          His answer was perfect.

          “We take our military far too seriously to allow women in the combat arms.”

  18. Nate D. says

    Every asset has corresponding liabilities. For men, this has meant that the benefits of headship and access to sex are equalized by the liabilities of risk of life, be it stressful/dangerous labor outside the home or offering protection. For women, this has meant that the benefits of domestic security and safety are equalized by the liabilities of subservience.

    All this has been complicated by the sexual revolution and technology. The sexual revolution meant that men could get sex from women without the burden of providing domestic security. Technology meant that domestic life for women became incredibly safe and unchallenging (unfulfilling), leading to the feminist conclusion that a women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle… until her biology yearns to create a family. And where is the man to sire the child and provide the domestic security she needs to create a home? He’s off watching porn and storming a digital battlefield. And what will he do when he’s ready to put down porn and video games and enter the job market only to find the work force congested with women that are out to prove they don’t need men?

    There is a vacuum in which modernity has made our previously-agreed-upon social contracts useless. What new contracts with fill that void?

    My wife and I, though on the younger end of Gen X, didn’t buy into the new era. We’re old-fashioned. I work long hours in engineering and construction and she stays at home with children. She gives me headship and I give her security. I give her safety and she gives me sex. It works, and it plays to our strengths. We love each other and are very happy. Our children are thriving.

    But how I will train our sons and daughters? In the previously-agreed-upon contract or the new, as-yet-untested ones.

    • Dano says

      I’d just make sure the sons understand your headship would be revealed as a hilarious and cruel joke if your wife ever desired it, the state would eagerly help make as unequal a give and take as they can, and you would be put in the demographic of westerners most likely to commit suicide. Trust (failing that the woman’s understanding and care for men’s issues) is more important than ever because this all really predates the sexual revolution. Men used to be guaranteed control of the children, now the opposite is the case but the financial obligation remains and it’s all designed so she wins every court battle against you even after being irresponsible and destructive. Getting one’s willy wet is probably no different for men, average guys get: A) pay for it, B) scrape the barrel, C) be competent and pro-commitment, same choices as always. Regarding sex that would dramatically change because of the sexual revolution, it’s the above average high status males likely taking up an even larger number of women from the average guys’ market than before (more female fuck buddies per, women freed to pursue sexual desire usually make do with fewer than the number a man would like so 10 high status guys could entirely remove 100 women, and women rate an absurdly high % of men as below average attractiveness). So it’s not so simple as sex, it’s the major relationship part that men find it’s not worth it to bust ass for. If you think you can swing a solid pre-nup and never want kids, it’s not all that different, but I feel sorry for the guys that badly want kids, their timing is terrible.

    • @NateD

      “She gives me headship and I give her security. I give her safety and she gives me sex.”

      These Freudian slips are just too hilarious to be true. No one “gives sex” to anyone in a relationship. You “have sex” with the other person, it’s a shared thing. Maybe you should check the definition of NPD to find out more.

    • Also @Nate D, if you’re saying your wife “gives you sex” in exhange of “security” (i.e. money), you’re essentially saying your wife is a prostitute. Incidentally, 19th century feminists called marriage “legalized prostitution” for this very reason. It’s always nice to see men prove feminism is still needed, even in the First World.

      • Nate D. says

        @ Susanna,

        You can over-simplify anything to the point that it sounds ludicrous. You’re comment isn’t profound. It’s goofy. Marriage is a complex relationship in which two people with varying needs and desires work together to find a level of satisfaction and happiness. My wife and I have managed to find that balance, and we both feel blessed and happy.
        Feminism has no bearing here. We’re two humans operating in an arrangement that we’ve agreed upon that plays to our skillsets. You may not like it. You may insinuate that my wife is merely a prostitute. But at least give us the freedom to balance our relationship in a way that works well for us.

        • @Nate D

          I was merely pointing out how your words are interpreted by others. “Give sex” in exchange of “(add compensation)” is prostitution by its own definition, you can’t get away from it. And although your arrangement may work just fine (or at least in your opinion, since your wife isn’t here to give her side of the story), your word choice betrays an underlying understanding that your wife exists to give you something, much like your laptop or your dog, instead of being a person with feelings and ideas. And as far as security and safety are concerned, wild animals are much safer in cages, but the quality of their lives is inferior in every way to those who live in the wild. They depend wholly on someone to care for them, while boredom saps their vitality away. The same is true of humans too. And this is especially important to note since we are talking about the disposability of men here, and men die eariler. What will your widow do to support for herself and her orphans if you die, since she chose security over ability to support herself? An important question, I’d think.

  19. Jean Levant says

    Interesting, well argumented article. Very convincing for the murder part, less for the rape part : it lacks of numbers to be able to compare.

    • Nox says

      if you take into account male rape by males (correctional services, prisons) males are equally “victims” of rape…

  20. Phillip says

    I read a study a few years ago which argued that due to a female’s fertility window she can only have a finite number of children. Men on the other hand can impregnate an almost infinite number of women. Because of this humans can lose more than ⅔ of the male population and still thrive, however if even ⅓ of the female population is lost we would risk extinction.
    I think the need to protect women is more than a social construct or learned behaviour. It’s instinctual as the survival of our species depends on it.

  21. Caligula says

    In Darwinian terms, men play for higher stakes.

    Darwin’s engine is always differential reproductive rates. In the ancestral environment, at least half of all men do not reproduce at all, the remainder reproduce at higher average rates than most women, and a very few are spectacularly successful.

    Whereas in this environment women tend to reproduce at close to their maximum potential to do so. Is it necessary to point out that this is certainly not true for men?

    Thus, Darwin’s Razor suggests that those men who aren’t going to reproduce anyway may profitably be expended to protect the group as a whole. And especially to protect the group’s most valuable human resource, fertile women.

    Perhaps even if/when these women don’t wish to be “protected.”

  22. Robin says

    Do we want to send more women into combat?
    Oh definitely! In fact exclusively. Men have sacrificed enough over the eons and now that women can do anything a man can do in high-heels its long overdue for women to pony up their empowered lives. You owe us.

    Do we want to have more women in dangerous jobs?
    Absolutely! It will cut down on all the kvetching about equal pay.

    Do we want to focus on male and female victims equally?
    A laudable goal but I’d settle ‘some’ focus on male victims vs. none.

    Male disposability imposes a challenge to feminism?
    No it doesn’t. Feminism is religion. They ignore facts routinely.

    “It’s necessary to find common ground”
    LoL!! No it isn’t. Feminists don’t have a single iota of respect for men. Zero empathy. I suspect the author is sympathetic to the feminist cause and like all feminists they demand from others what they refuse to show themselves.

    The whole culture is brazenly anti-male. The media, the universities, the legal system are structurally biased against men. The suggestion that the folks being thrown under the bus ‘owe’ the people who are throwing them under the bus is absurd.

    I believe a day of reckoning may well come but I often wonder what form it will take. The manosphere has been talking about this for decades… nice to see Quillette finally catching up!

  23. Simone says

    It is hard to argue that feminism is not needed when one looks at the victimization and oppression of women worldwide.

    When something is extremely divided, such as “treatment of women” in First World vs in Third World countries, saying “let’s take the average and pretend that’s how it looks everywhere” is useless. There’s no need for feminism in the First World and there is great need in the Third World. Empowering, educating, freeing women in the Third World would improve the circumstances there for everybody: educated, free women have fewer children and their children get better education.

    • E. Olson says

      Feminists don’t give a rip about female victimization and oppression in the developing world.

      In the First World, men do 90+% of all dangerous jobs, make up 75%+ of the homeless, are victims of 80+% of violent crime, make up less than 40% of the higher education student body, are the only net tax payers (i.e pay most in taxes get least in welfare benefits), and on average live about 8 less years. It is also illegal to pay women less for the same work or discriminate against women in hiring, and courts are much more likely to favor women in divorce and child support decisions, but less likely charge or sentence women for the same crime as a man. Thus I think it is very easy to argue that feminism is not needed.

      • @E.Olson

        Women do 60% of all labor in the world. Most labor done in the developing world is done by women. I don’t see you giving a rip about that fact.

        • dirk says

          Susanna, in Africa, they do about 90% I guess (have lived there 10 yrs), the men also have to PAY TO GET MARRIED, instead of getting a sum of the family of the bride ( to be able to get a start and support the family to be). Once married, your wife has to do the jobs, toiling in the shamba and the market place ,with the babiy on their backs. Every day food and a beer for the men, in the shade of a mango tree. Paradise. Really! (for the men, at least).

          Disposable?? Maybe now, after all this westernisation, but before? I doubt very much! Going on war fare, cutting trees for that shamba, directing camel rides? Not needed any more due to that Western technology and these world markets, marginalisation remains. What can you do?? We have become useless!

          • E. Olson says

            dirk – and yet 90% of the African “refugees” coming to Europe are men – if they have such a life of leisure at home why do they want to leave – European women certainly won’t wait on them hand and foot.

          • E. Olson says

            Susanna – actually most of those male “refugees” don’t come from war torn countries, which is why most of them are denied permission to stay. But even if you were correct – why are men escaping terrible war and leaving their women and children behind in a war zone?

      • Anj says

        @E. Olsen
        How would you know what all feminists think? Data?
        Men do dangerous jobs because they WANT TO. Ask the same bloke in a mine or on a roof to swap with his partner & see what happens.
        They don’t live as long? Maybe they should try a visit to the doc before their death beds or try a healthy diet.
        Maybe their just not into higher education. Not every bloke needs to be an egg head to get on.
        Statistics don’t explain the ‘whys’ just like the pay gap on the surface doesn’t.

        • @ Anj – “Statistics don’t explain the ‘whys’ just like the pay gap on the surface doesn’t.”

          Well statistics can actually explain ‘why’. Despite psychotic delusions of feminists, men and women aren’t equal, see? Fastest man is roughly 10% faster than fastest woman. Strongest man is roughly 15% stronger than strongest woman. Roughly speaking, men are 12.5% more powerful than women. In mechanics (physics), work is defined as mass moved over distance in time. Power is the rate of doing work. Therefore, the more power applied to get work done in a given time simply gives a result of more work achieved. Men achieve more work than women, by about 12.5% in a given time.

          Pay gap equals about roughly 12.5% (a bit more, maybe 15%) but see, the numbers explain ‘why’. The work achieved by women is less than that achieved by men, which results in the achieved work/pay received. Simply put, a woman is only as good as about 87.5% of a man. There’s your pay gap. Man = 100%, woman = 87.5%. Women are getting paid what they’re worth on an equal dollar pay basis.

          Now what to do about it, assuming equal outcomes are desired? Simple, to get an equal outcome men must be handicapped. One way of doing this is with taxation. Increase tax for men 6.25% and reduce tax for women 6.25%. Something like that.

          If only women could evaluate that they’re not equal to men, by roughly 12.5%, they’d try to change the equal pay argument and then insist on a sloped playing field in their favour. Pay gap solved. Maybe men might not like that, but who’d care, all men are disposable and leftist politicians would become feminist heroes overnight. Hang on a minute, they already are. So how come they haven’t worked this out yet? It’s very simple physics. Statistics can explain ‘why’. It’s just a matter of not being delusional and accepting the facts.

          • Anj says

            Dude, you’ve misinterpreted the comment. I with you on the pay gap. I’m using it as an example how on the surface it looks as though there is a problem when there isn’t.
            Careful, you’re bias is showing…..

  24. TJR says

    All fair points, but none of it should be at all surprising. AFAICS most people care about women more than they care about men. Most men certainly do, and we wouldn’t have it any other way.

    • Outraged says

      Of course not. It might take just a little bit of effort to uncover your biases and confront your hidden assumptions, and we can’t have that now can we.

    • Robin says

      I absolutely agree that men and women care more about women. We evolved that way. Feminism has rather cruelly exploited this evolutionary trait and forcing men to reconsider it, hence why more and more men are leaving the plantation.

      “Most men certainly do, and we wouldn’t have it any other way.”

      A perfect expression of blue pill thinking! However, given the scale of the anti-male discrimination and the numbers of men opting out… “most men” will turn into ‘some men’… then we will reach a tipping point.

      Literally millions of men have no stake in society. They will not want to support it financially (the State forcibly extracts their wealth) and they certainly won’t sacrifice for it. The situation is so bad that you have actually created a perverse incentive for a lot of folks to want to watch it collapse.

      It will be interesting.

  25. Anonymous says

    ” This suggests that men’s willingness to sacrifice men to save women may be tied to their need for sexual and reproductive success.”

    Yup, sums it up. “Let’s slaughter the dudes – more women for the rest of us ! Yeeha !”

    Indigenous tribes who raid their neighbors – whether in the Amazon or New Guineau or 16th century Massachusetts – typically slaughter the men and grab the women for “wives” or rape slaves.

    • Robin says


      ” This suggests that men’s willingness to sacrifice men to save women may be tied to their need for sexual and reproductive success.”

      I’m not sure this is true. Do young men who die in wars seriously think about their ‘reproductive success’ when they march off to wars? It doesn’t take much… just the sound of a beating drum… or being shamed by women for not marching off. I’d posit that most young men don’t think about reproduction/families until later in life.

      I think it is the social conditioning males get from birth by the gender that surrounds him for his most formative years. Born into servitude you get to die a martyr!

      I’m not sure what is more disturbing… the young man marching off because he is afraid of being shamed by a women for not being ‘man enough’.

      Or the scene of the mother receiving the folded flag while her son’s body is lowered into the ground and she is proud that he sacrificed his life that way.

      • Some-woman says

        Until after World War II, methods far worse than social shaming were routinely used to conscript men. The state would go so far as to execute a mans family for desertion and torture people who were found trying to leave the ranks. Various empires have used abduction of young males, threats of violence to a man and his entire family etc to get young men to show up for battles. Shaming from women doesn’t seem to be a major factor in men going to war in places where men go to war en masse. For the most part, what got men to war was conscription by the empire.

        It was always only a small minority of men who really wanted to fight for the state.

        • Robin says


          Enforcing discipline and preventing desertion has been around a very, very long time. Read up on discipline in the Roman army if you are interested. The history of ‘impressment’ in the Royal Navy, etc. Even today in all armies the worst offences are disobeying a lawful command in combat and desertion. The punishments are very severe assuming the suspect makes it to a trial…

          Once you’ve taken the Kings shilling the military justice system suspends your civilian rights. They truly own you for the duration.

          Mass conscription only works where the masses support their government. During the Vietnam war burning draft cards publicly and leaving the USA became a trend. Shaming however does work where the society is more socially cohesive and behind the campaign. So the White Feather campaign of WWI successfully got a lot of young men machine gunned to death in the muck of Paschendale.

          I agree with your last statement, it is a minority of men who volunteer. That volunteer army is soldier for soldier better at fighting than the conscript army. The problem with the volunteer system is that it breaks down in modern high intensity warfare when the casualties start rolling in. This is what happened in Canada in WWII around the conscription crisis. They didn’t have enough volunteers for overseas duty and as the army moved through Northern France and Holland it literally ran out of men.

      • Greg Allan says

        “A woman’s voice reminds me to serve and not to speak”

        Fire in the Hole – Jethro Tull

        • Rev. Wazoo! says

          PS Robin
          Starting families late is very new and still mostly in the West. Late teens/early 20s was normal in the US till the 80s/90s and is still normal where most wars are as well as in many parts of the US for the working class who largely supply the soldiers.

          Indeed, my brother joined the army precisely so he could afford to marry his girlfriend and start a family.

      • Rev. Wazoo! says

        Good points but they also support the reproductive success hypothesis, (ie getting married.) not contradict them. Shaming by women = “You’re unfit to marry” and the soldier returning with a Purple Heart etc = “good marriage prospect.”

        Even the well-mourned fallen soldier achieves being remembered after he’s gone, part of the psychological motivation to have children.

        • Robin says

          @Rev Wazoo

          I spent over a decade of my life in the military. For a short time I was a recruiting officer. I can assure that not once did any young guy say to me that his reason for joining the military was to enhance his reproductive success and start a family! Never. Doesn’t happen. Reasons vary per the individual but that isn’t one of them.

          In fact, if I knew anyone today (male or female) who wanted to have a family and a career in the military I would do my best to convince them not to join. It’s a total dead end and while I haven’t done any research, I’ll bet the military divorce statistics would bear this out. The navy in particular is truly hard as men are gone for months on sea duty. It’s probably the single worst career for a family oriented person.

          On the other hand, for a single guy who wants to see the world the navy is great!

          So to your point, I don’t think that is why they join. If after they leave they can barter their service to enhance their SMV, I could see that happening… Society however, is fickle. I was just watching the Ken Burns Viet Nam War documentary and a lot of returning vets were ashamed of their service and never said a word about it.

          • Space Viking says

            As a 5 year Army veteran, I have to disagree. Sure, you don’t hear men outright say they joined to reproduce, but it’s almost definitely a part of the reasoning. As an extreme example think of all those guys who joined the US Marine Corps completely or at least in part for “The Uniform”. I really don’t think such dudes are aesthetically attracted to Dress Blues.

            Another interesting observation; almost every female I knew who joined the Army did it as a method of Husband Hunting. I knew at least 4 who outright admitted it to me!

          • Robin says

            @Space Viking

            I think it may be an abstract part of a man’s reasoning. I’ll grant that many young guys saw the military as a way of ‘getting experience’, learning job skills or getting an education… to advance themselves to another point in their lives. Individual motives completely vary among people and for me it was grandfather, father, brother in the military so I should go too… We are talking about men here, not women.

            Fundamentally men and women look at reproduction differently. The two genders are on two different timelines. Women have to look at their fertility early because their reproductive window is narrow. Men technically have pretty much their entire lives.

          • @Robin Of course the young men you recruited weren’t consciously trying to increase their chance of reproductive success. Why do people think that every evopsych argument requires conscious machinations on the part of individuals? In almost every case it not only doesn’t require them—it precludes them.

  26. michael reed says

    Won’t it be sad, one day, when we all look back to the days before “The Patriarchy” was “defeated” and find that its core reason for existence was to Protect Physically Weaker Child Bearers from physical, financial, social predation by males willing to sacrifice many things – including their lives to do so? And that “Patriarchy” was an instinctual & as well as cultural system by which older males taught, by word & example, younger males to continue the practices? As with many embedded bio & cultural behaviors, there is No Going Back. Once males are “retrained” to believe and act according to the new rules, which won’t be easy, it will be impossible to restore. For this reason, one would hope this would be taken Much More Seriously than it has been and Thoughts might surpass Feelings in the study.

  27. GL says

    I’ve always seen this as a risk-reward issue. Men have traditionally had more opportunity for high rank, at the cost of running towards the lion while others run away. Simplistic of course, but an aspect I didn’t see addressed here.

    • Men traditionally have built the large organizations, institutions and physical buildings that comprise the framework for people to have high rank. But in your ‘egalitarian’ framework those things just appeared out of nowhere.

      • GL says


        Wow, I think you’re bringing your own agenda to the table here. I hate to break it to you, but you’ve completely misread what I posted. I’m not proposing nor assuming an ‘egalitarian’ framework where these things appear out of nowhere. I’m saying that men created and earned what they have, but part of being successful means taking risk.

        The other side of reward is risk, and there is an argument to be made that men have more exposure to both because the two are tied to each other. That argument as applied to female humans would be they have a lower risk tolerance, so their spread between reward and risk is narrower than it is for men.

        Again, I’m not necessarily making this argument, but it seems that it is one that should be addressed.

  28. Owntown Darts Scene says

    Well, that was a disappointing twist at the end. Here we had some honest reckoning of facts and figures, with only the hollow dogma of “feminist theory” to set against them at the conclusion. What is supposed to be the difference in practice between blaming the violence against men on men being violent beasts in the first place on the one hand, and bell hooks graciously acknowledging that “men suffer under the Patriarchy too” on the other?

    I suppose the theory leads to some peculiar emphases along the way too, such as “When a man rapes or castrates an enemy during wartime, it is not just a random act of violence, it is a direct attack on masculinity.” Well, kind of. But what’s missing is the possessive pronoun. It’s an attack on the victim’s masculinity specifically, not masculinity in general. You might say it’s an attack on the victim via his masculinity, a notable if generic vulnerable spot in his person. The point is to (if I may indulge) “center” the individuality of the person this “gendered violence” was visited upon, so as not to isolate him into one of competing subcategories.

    Of course, that doesn’t address male disposability as such. But it seems to me that’s one of those inconvenient aspects of the notorious tyrant nature that cannot simply be “solved” by decree, even if there was a will to issue one to that effect. Which there isn’t, as far as I can tell. Maybe we should just start with a recognition of each others’ trials, maybe some respect and empathy for those, and see where that gets us.

  29. Jerome Barry says

    The young lady seems to wish make her mark on sociology by magnanimously deigning to permit the suffering of man at the hand of man to be noted.

    Maybe when she matures she’ll have something to say.

  30. Morgan Foster says

    “addressing the oppression of women does not require us to disregard the victimization of men.”

    This, then, is the take-away from the entire article.

    We are all victims. No one is to blame.

  31. Jase-the-ace says

    Is this a typo, early on in the piece? “This night sound surprising given the emphasis in contemporary Western discourse on the oppression of women by men.”

  32. Terpi says

    Go to the website of any major NGO –Care, Save the Children, IRC, Oxfam, etc.– and see how much of their programming is focused on “women and girls.” Apparently men and boys in conflict zones have it made in the shade, didn’t you know? We need health, economic opportunities, entrepreneurship, micro-loans, financial services, education, etc. for “women and girls” specifically. There is absolutely no market for helping “men and boys” – corporations, foundations, and individuals are simply not interested. This is how identity politics creates fetishes and phobias.

  33. Jay Kenneth says

    This should be mandatory reading for all feminists.

    • Caligula says

      Why? Feminism is advocacy for women and girls; it has never been about men. At most, this “mandatory reading” might produce something like, “Well, that’s a shame, but, it’s not our problem. If it bothers you, why don’t you do something about it”?

      Feminism is orthogonal to problems experienced by men and boys. It’s not necessarily opposed to your doing something for them (so long as nothing is taken from women or girls), but, that’s entirely outside the scope of feminism.

      • Today most schools, universities, corporations, scientific organizations, governments, and many other institutions have explicit policies to protect and promote women. It is standard practice to hire or promote a woman ahead of an equally qualified man. Most large organizations have policies and watchdogs that safeguard women’s interests and ensure that women gain preferential treatment over men. Parallel policies or structures to protect men’s interests are largely nonexistent and in many cases are explicitly prohibited. Legal scholars, for example, point out that any major new law is carefully scrutinized by feminist legal scholars who quickly criticize any aspect that could be problematic or disadvantageous to women, and so all new laws are women-friendly. Nobody looks out for men, and so the structural changes favoring women and disadvantaging men have accelerated.
        Even today, the women’s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves. Almost certainly, this reflects one of the basic motivational differences between men and women, which is that female sociality is focused heavily on one-to-one relationships, whereas male sociality extends to larger groups networks of shallower relationships (e.g., Baumeister and Sommer 1997; Baumeister 2010). Crudely put, women hardly ever create large organizations or social systems. That fact can explain most of the history of gender relations, in which the gender near-equality of prehistorical societies was gradually replaced by progressive inequality—not because men banded together to oppress women, but because cultural progress arose from the men’s sphere with its large networks of shallow relationships, while the women’s sphere remained stagnant because its social structure emphasized intense one-to-one relationships to the near exclusion of all else (see Baumeister 2010). All over the world and throughout history (and prehistory), the contribution of large groups of women to cultural progress has been vanishingly small.

        • Rev. Wazoo! says

          Indeed, this also puts paid the old canard that women are more into “networking” tha men,. Men network more often and more successfully than women which is simultaneously complained about while denied.

          This kind of doubkethink is endemic.

      • Feminism is orthogonal to problems experienced by men and boys. It’s not necessarily opposed to your doing something for them (so long as nothing is taken from women or girls), but, that’s entirely outside the scope of feminism.

        Feminism is opposed to doing something for men. Bomb threats were called in when AVFM attempted to meet for the first time.

  34. Graham Hill says

    An interesting area to look at is work place bullying to see who perpetrates psychological violence, which can be career terminal. Research I have carried out in 2014 suggested that c70% of bullies were female with c80% of victims being female. A male who therefore falls within the 20% will have no sympathy or support or redress. It is another aspect of being disposable.

  35. Nakatomi Plaza says

    This just comes off as desperate and sad. America is involved in how many wars now? I know it was eight under Obama, but I’ve lost track. Nobody cares about soldiers getting killed. Nobody. We call them “heroes,” drink beer, and lie like hell to ourselves that they didn’t die in vain when we all know they did. Complain about “male disposability” to a typical Republican and they’ll just call you a communist and a pussy. And now apparently wondering about the violence done to women is forbidden by the right as well.

    Do you people give a shit about anybody? You’re just blaming your own issues on any convenient scapegoat that comes wondering by. If you really care about male violence go protest a war or advocate for adequate healthcare and a social safety net to help eliminate so many of the causes of misery and violence. Oh, but that would just make you a communist and a pussy, so we can’t have that either, can we? Let’s just blame feminists for all our problems.

    • Greg Allan says

      Feminists were largely responsible for the exclusion of boys and men from certain taxpayer funded mental health services over several decades. It now seems there have been thousands of suicides among male victims of child sexual abuse at least in part due to that denial of service. The ideologues responsible have the blood of those victims all over their hands.

      • Rev. Wazoo! says

        Greg Allan
        Yes, but these were men not producing nor likely to be induced to produce a surplus which could channeled to women and so were disposable.

        Imagine a significant proportion of men today opting to become monks officially rather than merely living monkishly as so many are doing and which gets so much negative attention

        The cries of how bad for it is would be deafening even though it would only be bad for the women wgo couldn’t channel any surplus to themselves. Men producing only enough to support themselves simply? Heresy against nature!

        Who would subsidise child care, maternity leave, bloated H R and Equity departments?

    • mitchellporter says

      Nakatomi Plaza, under the article “How Progressivism Enabled the Rise of the Populist Right”, I asked you this:

      “Is there some other place or some other worldview you would recommend? I’m serious, you’re here mostly as a critic, here is a chance to say what you affirm.”

      I ask you again, is there some forum, some medium, some meeting-place of minds, which you would recommend as definitively better than Quillette? A place where wisdom reigns, where in your opinion the people are more often good rather than bad, and right rather than wrong?

      I request a serious, concrete answer.

    • Do you people give a shit about anybody? You’re just blaming your own issues on any convenient scapegoat that comes wondering by. If you really care about male violence go protest a war or advocate for adequate healthcare and a social safety net to help eliminate so many of the causes of misery and violence. Oh, but that would just make you a communist and a pussy, so we can’t have that either, can we? Let’s just blame feminists for all our problems.

      The feminists are the source of our problems.

      As the French once had the dreaded taille, so western civilization, dominated by women, has its tax on men, its Internal Revenue – the infernal income tax. The Founding Fathers of America drew most of the taxes from exterior sources – from imported goods, particularly luxury goods used by the more wealthy. Taxes then, promoted morality – not materialism and decadence, they were drawn from existing wealth – not on income, on the “haves” – not on the “have-nots”; could not slavery be viewed as a 100% income tax? Women, as they came to control most of the wealth, shifted the burden away from consumption onto production, from themselves onto men. Now, someone will be quick to point out that women pay taxes too, and here we have the same “problem” as with the laws in general. Women caused many of our laws to be created with the intent of targeting male behavior. But now that they are taking over the traditional roles of men, women are moving into the sights of the very same legislation that they created. This leaves feminists working overtime to make up excuses for the criminal behavior of women, just as they labor to invent new entitlement programs, tax credits, and child support increases that offset the money that women pay in taxes.

      The collectivist tendency even taken at its best, with “Big Sister” standing in for the all-protective Mother Earth, destroys the strong while protecting the weak. As strength and independence disappear, creativity eventually goes with them, and hence the means to create new technologies needed to support higher populations of these weak and dependent individuals. As this “victimization” philosophy reaches extreme proportions, demographic groups are categorized as to the degree which they are “at risk” and in need of differential protection from Big Sister.

  36. max blancke says

    The biological truth is that survival of any population is directly related to the number of healthy females in that population. The number of men is almost irrelevant, as long as it is >0.
    This reality is reflected in our values.

  37. TofeldianSage says

    Karen Straughn said all of this 6 years ago.

  38. jimhaz says

    Until such time as nations leaders no longer hold desires for imperialism (ie never), I’d rather have the disposability of men than culturally feminised men and masculinised women.

    We are less discontent when our archetypes are actualised – when we are what our animal bodies tells us what is right, not our more error prone human minds. Equality goes against this actualisation.

    Technological advancement does open up freedom and equality – but it does not change the mostly subconscious status instinct. Historically, if a man could not dominate other men, they could always find a women to dominate (be in charge of, responsible for and to provide for) and find some form of status. Cause too much trouble and they were killed or cast out of that society.

    Like Japanese Samurai – if we fail to honourably win the status battles, then battle glory (mass killers) seppuku, hermitage (monks) or crime (Ronin) appear on the negative side of the options coin. The most beneficial option is self-improvement, but in our society that is optional, it now lacks the structure whereby other local males will step in to force a regressing soul towards self-discipline based activities which can improve ones status – which is why folks like Jordan Peterson and Jocko Willink are so appealing and valuable.

      • jimhaz says

        @ innovativefinancialconcepts

        I’m satisfied that the more equal democratic societies create the most content populations.
        As in virtually all things we humans do, the key is always moderation. For me the left social progressives passed the point of moderate about 5 years ago. I’m not Woke.

        I think it is dangerous to keep letting the rich get richer, via tax cuts and loopholes, so I’m for a flatter hierarchy – by about 10-15%. I’d like the focus to shift to low income earners via limiting immigration to raise their wages and by attempting to create an environment where the mental health of people who are doing badly, might improve.

    • Rev. Wazoo! says

      It’s also true that the practical benefits for young men improving their skills has receded into the fog of more than a decade hence. With no possible family in the foreseeable future, why not live monkishly and perfect abstract non-remunerative skills chess, bowling, bridge, archery oh, and their modern equivalents like rock climbing, video games, astronomy and electric guitar?

      • jimhaz says

        For too many, such as myself, who’ve never been physically adventurous or nerdy, time spent in front of screens is just too easy. Due to the long term physical costs, both sexes are self-disposing over time.

  39. Angelique says

    Concern for women’s human rights doesn’t mean there can’t be concern for men’s. A few loud ‘feminists’ don’t make a whole. Tit for tat & make everything into a competition much?
    Before concern for women’s rights where was all this indignant concern for men’s?
    By all means let’s hear it but let’s not pretend that men cared about men until asked to care about women.
    Man up, take action & save the comparative bleating if you really care.
    They don’t make ‘men’ like they used to….

    • Robin says


      Before concern for women’s rights where was all this indignant concern for men’s?

      Indeed. That is precisely the history of the 19th century labour struggles. With the slave trade ended in 1807 through the British Empire the United States in 1865 it coincided with the industrial revolution. Employers were obliged to pay people for their work however, those workers were treated little better than slaves. These struggles were mostly men on men and were extremely violent. Strike breakers, police repression, use of the military… (The Canadian response to the Winnipeg general strike and ‘Bloody Saturday’).

      To answer your question, that concern was in organized labour movements.

      Arguably though the lack of political concern and attacks on labour was in large part due to the fact that there was no general franchise among the population which only occurred after WWI. Before that the people dying in factory fires, mine collapses, killed by strike breakers, etc. were not constituents of the ruling political class. They had no say in society.

      The concern for men’s rights was agitated by the Unions who advocated for what men to the most in their lives… work. But neither most men nor most women had any political say in society and men had no empathy from their rulers.

      Where you see any concern for men’s rights by women came from women like ‘Mother’ Jones.


      You’ll note however that she cast her concern in terms of helping the families that those male workers supported. Not the workers themselves per se. It goes to the heart of the whole empathy and male disposability issue.

      • Donnerhauser says

        I did observe on another article that women’s rights have advanced incredibly peacefully. While there were some terrorist campaigns by suffragettes, women never launched uprisings or anything, although to be fair the suffragettes could sometimes be treated badly.

        However men’s fight for their rights, as you observe, was incredibly violent in many countries. The labour movement saw vicious opposition in many countries, with state terror being fairly normal.

        Women’s rights, particularly in the post-WW2 era have had it incredibly easy. I cannot recall who said it but it was once observed that women have made more advancements in the past 100 years than men made in the prior 1000 years.

        Now sometimes it could be more complicated – Bismarck argued the welfare state based on worker’s feeling insecure (though even then this was a means of winning over people to implement it, his primary motive was social stability).

        This is not women’s fault or anything but it goes to show how male disposability bleeds into this. Arguably men are complicit in this, we feel we must do everything ourselves and that we will not be given a helping hand.

      • Anj says

        Like I said, “they don’t make men like they used to”. The main fight for labour improvement in the West is ancient history.
        What have you guys done for yourselves lately apart from belly ache after the feminist fact? If anything it’s todays mothers’s of boys doing all the advocating.
        Cute how you bemoan men not having the right to work tho.
        Oh & “work” isn’t just restricted to outside of the home….

        • @Anj

          Well said. This “belly ache” about feminism is about to create an ulcer and the best way to avoid an ulcer is to learn to relax and stress less. And as usual, those who moan the most are the ones least interested in action.

  40. Respek Wahmen says

    “Male disposability” is an inherent feature of any successful system of human organization (patriarchy). Men are expendable; women protected; children central. Essentially, men are to hold primary power in society/politics/family.

    Fighting this just leads to societal failure and eventual replacement by those who accept the natural order of things.

  41. Anj says

    Childish comparison. What next, ignore homelessness because mental health is more prevalent?

    • Rev. Wazoo! says

      Um, Anj, it precisely because we are ignoring mental health that homelessness has become so prevalent. I’ve wandered homeless camps listening and listening and more than half have severe mental health problems.

      • Anj says

        Um, Rev, not all homelessness is due to mental health.
        But the connection is not the point here rather we can walk & chew gum ie show concern for two or more issues at once.
        Apologies, perhaps I should have used two independent issues as an example as the bleedin’ obvious is not for everyone…

  42. Emma says

    Disposability of men is absolutely vital for the perpetuation of patriarchy. Patriarchy is not the elevation of all men to the same level regardless, it is a culture of relative dominance – a pecking order – serving the patriarch – the ‘alpha’ man.

    Men die in wars protecting the interests of the elite. Men bully each other vying for the position of dominance. Men are forgotten and ostracised when they don’t meet the requirements. Their wellbeing suffers. Their potential as full humans is quashed.

    If there were no women and men could reproduce by, say, cloning themselves, patriarchy would be just as cruel. Males forced to comply, males told they’re not a ‘real man’ unless they toughen up.

    Into this system come women and children, as property.

    Women can also enforce patriarchy – of course they can – by catering to an ‘alpha’ at the expense of others, as well as policing women who step out of their role. This is a key role of women which feminists do not subscribe to. We are called ‘anti-man’ when we refuse to cater at our own expense. That doesn’t mean we don’t care.

    Feminism is already engaged with this issue and has been talking about it for decades (bell hooks is far from the only voice here). Even ‘pop’ feminist figures like Liz Plank @feministafabulous point to it on a regular basis and has written a book ‘For the Love of Men’ encouraging men to step out of this structure.

    To position the ‘disposability of men’ as something feminism hasn’t considered shows a lack of knowledge. It’s part of the whole thing.

    Privilege is a baited hook. Male privilege comes at a cost – being part of a system that doesn’t recognise your humanity, only the power you are able and willing to wield over others. Feminists have known this for a long time.

    • Jack Dee says

      your line “by catering to an ‘alpha’ at the expense of others” contains a vast amount. It underlies the biological dynamics that are still very much with us. Sexual selection that is essential biology. It is a paradox at the heart of feminism that cannot be resolved. Feminists want sexual freedom, what is now called “bodily autonomy” and was once called “love marriages” but will only mate with desirable males. Women will never stop striving to mate with the highest males in any particular hierarchy, and why should they ? A purely egalitarian society would have to have purely egalitarian mating practices. Such a society would fail because of that other great biological dynamic, conflict between groups. That egalitarian society would be torn to pieces either internally or externally by any reasonably competent hierarchical society. They would be like sheep against tigers.

  43. Andrew Roddy says

    If one man can fertilize a hundred women then it’s the man you should protect. Ninety nine of the women are disposable.

    • @Andrew Roddy.

      Um…. The man still needs the hundred women to fertilize. If you get rid of a large number of girls like China and India has done, there aren’t enough women to go around since most people still prefer monogamy. I think you got your logic twisted there.

      • dirk says

        No Susan, he doesn’t. Many women, on their own now, after one or two relations with men, have a “children wish” (so, quite different from what it was once, they just appeared) , government is even subsidizing this wish and all the medical costs involved. Also, they can buy frozen semen, sent by mail from Denmark for as little as a few 100 euro, unbelievable but true! You can even make your choices at that: blond, blue eyes, intelligent, whatever!

        • But @Dirk, those women have to exist to have the babies. Andrew Roddy said 99% of women are disposable. In other words, we only need a few thousand women to have all the babies to replace 7 billion people. Do the math and see if you can’t see the error of the logic used here.

          • dirk says

            I was talking and reasoning on male disposability, as is the case in animal breeding (1 bull for 10.000 cows, and even without Art.Insem., males are almost all finished of, females are kept). I was answering your remark on the 100 women, not on Andrew’s.

  44. Rev. Wazoo! says

    A good article

    A shame, though, that it left out the male dispoability behavior and insituational incentives that have the most impact on our society: the dispoability of male parents.

    Starting with the poor, disproportionately black, demographic, this social experiment has yielded dire results which have been spreading for some time and with it the crime/incarceration, lack of participation in ever-degraded schools and the generational passing-on of dysfunctional family be behaviors.

    Its toxicity is masked in the mostly white middle classes as the stats are greatly skewed: “single mothers” there are usually the opposite despite legal status.

    A woman working flexible hours in HR who collects handsome child support from her ex (along with some weekend/holiday child care) while living with a man who earns more than her, pays at least half the rent and for holidays etc can be said to have arranged 1.5 men to assist in the raising of her children. She really should be in a different category from single mother statistics.

    My father’s girlfriend and my girlfriend’s mother both wouldn’t remarry (despite living with my father and her “unofficial step-father” respectively) as that would have ended firstvalimony/child support then a share of pensions.

    These are true “welfare queens” not some poor black woman in Harlem…

  45. Emma says

    I liked the article for the most part, but I disagreed with the author’s conclusion. Why do we need feminism to address violence as a whole? Given that both genders are a victim of it, then what we need is the law. As Kouloglou clearly states throughout most of the essay, feminism tends to downplay, or just completely ignore, violence against men and maximize the extent to which women are actually victimized. Feminism is not about equality, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it never was. It is about the sweet seats of power for a small handful of women who they are entitled to it.

    Again, this is a great article, but it is disheartening to see Kouloglou take a diplomatic approach to feminism. I don’t know any better, but I’d say she’s pandering to it. Sadly, feminism has done more harm than good — for both men and women. On the one hand, women are now implicitly encouraged to act like men (e.g. they can join the military) and told they don’t need men. Men are taught to tone down their masculinity and to be more attuned to their feminine side. Hence why we have so many soy boys.

  46. Jochen Schmidt says

    “Consider now a context in which men are increasingly devalued as providers, actively discouraged from seeking status, ridiculed and pathologized for being masculine — all while facing fierce competition from women candidates, who are better trained and more highly valued than they are, and for jobs whose hiring committees openly discriminate against men. That most people fail to register this as a recipe for disaster is a testament to the blindness of our mob psychology, which too readily makes us pick on losers.”


  47. Good article. Everyone suffers in war, including men, women and children. An example is from the Rwandan war in the 90s. In 1994 the Minister of Family & Women’s Affairs Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, at Tutsi woman, announced to the opposing Hutu women that there was food and medical aid in a stadium in the town of Butare. According to the NY Times is was a trap and Pauline Nyiramasuhuko ordered the horrific torture, rape and death of thousands of women. (Trigger warning: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/magazine/a-woman-s-work.html?pagewanted=1 ). The way we see women primarily as victims is a particularly disturbing example of ‘gamma bias’ in gender, the tendency to magnify bad behaviour by men and minimise bad behaviour by women.

    • Morgan Foster says


      I just read that NYT article you linked to. It says it was Tutsi women who were trapped, raped and murdered by a Hutu mob. Not the other way around.

      It’s been more than 20 years now, but it’s important to remember as much about the truth of what happened as we can.

      Christian Armenians, for example, did not murder 1.5 million Muslim Turks.

  48. Alan N says

    It was going well until it fizzled out into “we don’t really understand why we all treat men as disposable because nobody’s doing the research, but never mind, at least we know that we definitely need more feminism.” I guess that’s the price of an academic career in 2019.

  49. dirk says

    There is another thing as just male and female. In my youth, a professor was about the highest you could become in your life, not materially (managers and Trump like people earned more), but as what honour and esteem accounted. All of a sudden ( and I still remember the beginning), in TV programs and the media, these same professors (why the hell they appeared at all there??) were more or less laughed at and not any more taken serious. -You are a professor, aren’t you? So you must know it all? Let’s hear it now!- Next question! And, of course, the professor didn’t know (some idiot question). Hahahaaha, that’s how it went. I’m old now, and used to all this. Even, it doesn’t affect me anymore, one gets used to it. It’s simply part of the scene now!

    • dirk says

      In short: what’s highly respected and honoured at one moment, can be despised and disposed of (in minds and hypes) tomorrow, all a matter of some sort of neo-marxism.

  50. Janet B. says

    The cognitive dissonance in this statement is striking. It implies something like 60% of all men were killed. And yet it has taken a hard toll on women. Well okay then.

    “The genocide in Rwanda is a far-reaching tragedy that has taken a particularly hard toll on women. They now comprise 70 percent of the population, since the genocide chiefly exterminated the male population.”

    • HHH says

      Totally agree: males account for 52% of the population aged between 15 and 64 years old and for 45% of the youngest people (0-14); as these two groups make for 96% of the global population in the country, I find it hard to believe males only count as 30%. Moreover, the genocide killed 1M people or thereabouts, which resulted in a fall of the country’s population from 8 to 7M inhabitants. Even if it had been a million of males, it implies that the country would have had 3,1M male inhabitants before the genocide took place, as the global population volume reached 8M people at the time. Looks very unrealistic to me too.

      • The reason why the population dropped is not because most males were literally killed. It was a combination of males getting killed and other males getting punished for the genocide. (very few women got punished for genocidal crimes even though many did participate) But even then the number is misleading. I recommend reading Adam Jones’analysis on the Rwanda genocide where he explains where the figure comes from.

  51. David Prichard says

    I have concerns for Maria Kouloglou’s academic future. We have seen in the past the threat of violence feminism is capable of. Erin Pizzey, founder of the women’s shelter movement, forced into exile due to death threats. Suzanne Steinmetz, a pioneer in American domestic violence studies withdrew from the field after bomb threats. Not that Ms. Kouloglou might be subjected to such extreme threats, rather in this woke generation advancement may be limited as we have seen in other academic instances.

    To be frank I’m a tad cynical about the article. It is a thesis that was first offered by Dr. Warren Farrell a quarter century ago. In the intervening years not much has improved. In the United States, when a third party is involved, women are more likely to kill a partner. In Canada, male youth in their late teens are seven times more likely to commit suicide than their sisters, yet programs for young men compared to the ’empowerment’ are next to non-existent.

    Two years ago, attending a speaker presentation by the Canadian periodical Walrus, the closing speaker presented feminist myths long discredited. The 1 in 4 women sexually assaulted was presented as fact despite Koss’s study for Ms. magazine long been repudiated. No mention of how a group of women working for Statistics Canada had falsified Dr. Reena Sommer’s thesis on domestic violence to eliminate female on male violence.

    Ruth Grier, former health minister in the Province of Ontario, was to publicly say there wasn’t much point in treating men for prostate cancer as they would die of something else first. As the incidence and mortality of breast and prostate cancer are about the same can you imagine the furor were a politician to say the same thing regarding breast cancer?

    My concerns for Ms. Kouloglou’s academic future are based on the fact that apart from improvements in the detection and treatment of prostate cancer, little has changed in the past thirty years. I have seen former colleagues killed or crippled at work often to to relaxed health and safety laws. The lives destroyed, often by false allegations, often in family court. Suicide among such men is quite high having been financially and emotionally drained. Men who haven’t seen their children despite having court orders to enable them to do so.

    After 30 years of advocating for men, largely in health related issues, what I see is feminists, politicians and media, ignoring facts and labelling those who advocate for men by proclaiming the men and women I have worked with over the years as MRA’s in a dismissive and derisive manner. I can only hope that a younger generation will have more success in approaching a balanced approach to the needs of women and men.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @David Prichard

      I am now at the point where I prefer to vote for a male politician because I think he’ll be more empathetic regarding my needs.

      • David Prichard says

        @Morgan Foster

        A couple of years ago, during an federal election debate, I pointed out to a female NDP candidate the suicide rate for young men and that it was even greater in indigenous communities. Her response, “What has that to do with me.”

  52. HighResolutionSleep says

    “There are indeed circumstances in which women are treated as more disposable, such as the disproportionate abortion of female fetuses in countries like China and India. However, although this complicates the Male Disposability Hypothesis, it does not invalidate it.”

    I’m afraid this is incorrect. This is precisely due to the phenomenon of male disposability that this occurs. In these cultures, having male offspring is an asset whereas having female offspring is often a liability. The reason behind this is simple: you can indenture you son into your servitude in old age but not your daughter. A son is a retirement plan; a daughter is not.

    Now, one might solve this problem by removing this obligation from men in these societies, but in nations without retirement security offered by the government, this isn’t sure to be a popular policy prescription.

    On the other hand, we might suggest amending filial obligations to women, however, I’d be willing to bet money that the reaction to this in these cultures would be something to the effect of “but we can’t do that to our daughters!”

    Thus, we’re stuck—and it’s not because the cultures involved are not concerned with women.

    • @HighResolutionSleep

      Women have also filial obligations. It’s called obedience. It’s seen especially in Confucianism where women most obey father-husband-son, who ever happens to have the power in the family.

  53. (Prof. Emer.) Ferrel Christensen says

    To Ms. Kouleglou: Though your article is thorough and accurate, I believe it fails to give adequate coverage to the general human failing of tribalism. It indeed does not apply in the same way to the genders as it does to ethnic groups–except in the minds of the multitude of non-egalitarian feminists. I like to use as illustration the tragic story of Amy Biehl, an idealistic young woman who went to South Africa during the apartheid battles to help oppressed blacks. But a group of black extremists ran across her one night and, seeing in here as just another hated white, murdered her. I submit that this attitude is not only irrational and evil, it is THE VERY HEART OF ALL BIGOTRY, all around the world: “Your kind are all alike. If someone else of that kind commits some evil (or has some advantage), by osmosis you share the blame (or accrue some of that advantage).” The most egregious crime against humanity here involved is not male disposability, but the failure to see people as individuals rather than mere representatives of some “kind”.

    • @Ferrel Christensen,

      You are absolutely right. The failure to appreciate the human mind is what causes most misery in the world. The disposability of humans is a direct result of the negation of their ability to think for themselves. Education used to be a privilege in most of the world, and is treated as such in many parts. When people are seen merely as bodies, we fail to see the vast potential the human mind possess. All research shows when women, especially, are educated, all society fairs better as women teach children and the next generation doesn’t have to continously re-create the proverbial wheel. Naturally, education cannot cut the deep ties of tribalism when people refuse to see other people as capable of free thought. This, I believe, is the failing of Intersectionalism (“all white people are racist” etc), and hinders real progress.

      • KD says

        Unless ethnocentrism is a more effective evolutionary strategy than universalism, in which case eliminating universalists from the gene pool before they can reproduce themselves and their value commitments would speed up the only “real progress” that can be expected.

  54. Foyle says

    The Y chromosome has always been subject to much harsher competitive pressures. You have about 2x as many female ancestors as male, and research has established neolithic periods where ratio of female to male breeders has been up to 17:1, and frequently >4:1. That evolutionary force is also what has made men stronger/faster/smarter than women (on average). So yes our history is one of male disposability, and probably that is to a degree innately built into our psychology.

    • Asenath Waite says


      I guess that’s true. Much greater selective pressure on males in general. Certainly on an evolutionary time scale.

    • John Robinson says

      That doesn’t explain why men have far more genetic and physiological afflictions. And any pressures on men get passed on to daughters and sons.

  55. Indeed the practice of discounting men’s lives continues in that men are forced to pay the same in social security and most pensions, despite not living as long to collect it. Discussion of this point with feminists generally get one to the idea that men’s shorter lives are the results of “bad choices.” Wrong. The mortality difference in favor of the female sex is present in every human society and starts before a baby is born and continues at every age into the oldest-old, beyond age 110. If it is about choice one wonders what risky behaviors these newborn boys and nursing home men are indulging in.


    Before 2016, when it became illegal under Obamacare, women were charged more for medical insurance (“gender rating”). This had nothing to do with maternity care, which was extra. Women successfully argued that because insurance companies couldn’t decide precisely how MUCH more to charge women (in some cases they were doubtless overcharged), that all the difference was made up. But the insurance companies were not making this up, or else some woman-owned insurance company could have cleaned up the market by feasting on the bad statistics. That didn’t happen. All the companies did this until it was outlawed. “A Woman Is Not a Pre-existing Condition” said the protest T-shirts.

    But evidently, having a Y chromosome is. It’s perfectly legal to charge males more for life insurance, precisely for the same reason that at all ages, they are more likely to die. But again, the idea that the differences are about free-will have been addressed above. It really is a pre-existing condition. Society doesn’t care.

  56. Indeed the practice of discounting men’s lives continues in that men are forced to pay the same in social security and most pensions, despite not living as long to collect it. Discussion of this point with feminists generally gets one to the idea that men’s shorter lives are the results of “bad choices.” Wrong. The mortality difference in favor of the female sex is present in every human society and starts before a baby is born and continues at every age into the oldest-old, beyond age 110. If it is about choice one wonders what risky behaviors these newborn boys and nursing home men are indulging in.


    Before 2016, when it became illegal under Obamacare, women were charged more for medical insurance (“gender rating”). This had nothing to do with maternity care, which was extra. Women successfully argued that because insurance companies couldn’t decide precisely how MUCH more to charge women (in some cases they were doubtless overcharged), that all the difference was made up. But the insurance companies were not making this up, or else some woman-owned insurance company could have cleaned up the market by feasting on the bad statistics. That didn’t happen. All the companies did this until it was outlawed. “A Woman Is Not a Preexisting Condition” said the protest T-shirts.

    But evidently, having a Y chromosome is. It’s perfectly legal to charge males more for life insurance, precisely for the same reason that at all ages, they are more likely to die. But again, the idea that the differences are about free-will have been addressed above. It really is a pre-existing condition. Society doesn’t care.

  57. Days of Broken Arrows says

    Sperm is plentiful and therefore cheap. Eggs come around only once a month and are thus valuable. Valuing females of males is in our biology because because of this. You can repopulate a city in a few years with one man and a dozen women, but you can’t with the reverse. I like the point made in this article, but wish they were anchored more in biology than sociology,

  58. Geheim Nisvoll says

    It echos strongly of Karen Straughan’s (GirlWritesWhat / Honey Badger Brigade) argument which has been available on YouTube for nearly a decade now. While I am glad that the issue has exposure, I find it extremely odd that it is occuring on a Feminist web site as it is the Feminists themselves who are the most ardent in their passion to ensure that men are forced to continue in their roles even as they absolve themselves of any responsibilities or complicity and skip away laughing. I see this as a thinly-veiled attempt at re-branding the argument in an attempt to take control of it and re-jigger it for their own purposes. As is revealed by this paragraph:

    “It is not possible to say for sure given the available data whether male disposability is partially evolved or purely the result of socialization. Even if we were to assume that male disposability is, on some level, instinctual, it doesn’t mean that society cannot minimize it. The real question is, do we want to eliminate male disposability? Do we want to send more women into combat? Do we want to have more women in dangerous jobs? Do we want to focus on male and female victims equally? I think this kind of equality is a laudable goal, but it will surely meet some resistance from society. Men themselves are often hesitant to see themselves as victims, traditionalists (male and female) would resist such a challenge to gender norms, and many feminists would resist the idea that male victims should receive greater attention.”

    SImply asking the QUESTION of whether “WE WANT TO ELIMINATE MALE DISPOSABILITY” points out the absolute depths of Feminist depravity.

    Feminists NEVER DO JACK SH*T FOR MEN unless it somehow benefits THEMSELVES first and foremost.

    Feminism is a hate group and Feminists are hateful, sexist people.


    • @Geheim

      Is this really all you can say here (and you’re not the only one)? Do you think mothers enjoy sending their sons to die in wars? Or their husbands? Who creates wars? Men or women?

  59. powderburns says

    The disposable element is not a choice. There’s much strength in it. Why cast it off? Valour in the face of life threatening danger, is an awesome responsibility. Risk gives life. Who wants to paperwork the risk out of every step you take. JSA the zest from life. The perversion of city slickers into inhuman forms who do not have to face the reality of blood and life, are in for a rude shock. I think it will come with the next economic downturn. I came across the virtue of practical knowledge in Ethics. What do you do when faced with the tempest of a violent chaotic situation. You must understand that mother nature is nasty and random. Life is hard. You’d better be smart. It’d help if you were strong and know how to cut down a tree, skin a goat, take a punch in the face, choke out an attacker. Women assault and rape men and boys with impunity. People are bad. You’d better be ready, or be near someone who is.

    • Andrew says

      Thanks for a much needed look at an important subject. The excesses of the feminist movement have instilled an attitude of criticism and blame of men by women.
      Physical pain is insignificant compared to the emotional and psychological pain in a marriage to a woman who has the attitude that her every whim is a sign of a strong and independent woman. A husband’s point of view is irrelevant. Especially when she asked a lawyer how much she’d get if she left and it was more than enough.
      After seven years of marriage it’s goodbye Daughter, goodbye business. Leaving on a jet plane.
      Still, that was 23 years ago. It’s too late for me, but the topic is important.

      • @Andrew

        How about the husband who considers his wife’s opinions irrelevant, who expects his every whim to be obeyed? Those men exist too. What should we do about them?

        I’m beginning to see a trend here. Men who got hurt by a woman and now see all women as the enemy, yet they harp about how women see men as the enemy. I’d say we’re doing the tango here, one side accusing the other, yet unable to stop coming close.

  60. Barney Doran says

    The next world war should be instructive if our current crop of feminists get their way. As China has taught us, if you really want to stunt the growth of a nation, dispose of its women. Taking a card from that deck, men and women of each future belligerent will see the wisdom of doing just that, and we will see a vast genocide of the opposing child bearers. The unintended consequences of that will be interesting to watch. BTW, the first two quotes of this article hurt my teeth. In this golden age of victimization, the real victims are not the actual victims but rather the perceived victims, and they want all your sympathy. Excuse me while I stop my head from spinning.

  61. Outraged says

    The primary blame for all this belongs not with feminists but with stupid conservative men, who continued to insist on a male duty to protect and provide for women at the very time those same women were demanding societal equality, and likewise continued to maintain women on a pedestal, regardless of whether their actions justified it or not. Without the support of these idiots either feminism would have been stopped dead in its tracks, or else a feminism which attacked female privilege as well as male privilege would have developed. They are the ones enabling women of today to have their cake and eat it too.

    You may have noticed that the new generation of conservative shaming rhetoric (“soy boys”, etc.) isn’t having much effect. Conservative men have let their very identity be defined in terms of how much use they can be to women. So they can strut around proclaiming about how much “real men” they are but we aren’t listening.

  62. Always good to see an article that verifies that we are, still, despite the worst angels of our nature ( cable news and social media) wired as Intelligent design or god intended us…….

  63. Pingback: Why are men more disposable than women? – Get Rich Bang Babes

  64. SV says

    “The Patriarchy hurts men too” is a giant cop out, because inherent in the definition of patriarchy is that it is set up to benefit men at the expense of women. If it is true that men being in charge has no positive effect on the well-being of men over women, and in fact is entirely opposite when counted in terms of back-breaking labor or premature death, then it is just a way for feminists to have their oppression cake and eat it too.

    The case of Boko Haram is very illustrative: when they murdered boys, almost no-one paid attention… when they kidnapped girls, it became an international atrocity.

  65. Phil says

    Who was the first person to put this hypothesis forward?

    was it Warren Farrell?

  66. rte says

    If I could get away with it, I would kill ANY number of men to get sexual access to at least one attractive woman. This is what my instincts order me to do.
    Other men are only a threat, and insemination competitors.
    I wish all other men were dead, so I had all fertile women for me alone.

  67. Wow, so much hurt, anger and resentment here. I’d say this is the living proof sociologists are right: we suck at creating and maintaining healthy human relationships. And when we get hurt we tend to blame it all on a group, although it was an individual who did the deed. Much evolution of the human mind is still needed.

    • Anj says

      Shoosh, you are entering the Quillette men’s safe space where the thinking man’s ‘unlucky in love/work’ unleash ‘free thought’ hell for the sins of female incompliance…

    • Asenath Waite says

      @Susanna Krizo

      The article and comments are a response to feminists demonizing and blaming all of their problems on men and having little to no sympathy for (or even acknowledgement of) any form of male suffering. This is what generates the hurt, anger and resentment. Personally I am not in favor of any group blaming its problems on any other group, or of any form of tribalism, but if one group does decide to do this to another group, it seems reasonable to expect some response from the second group.

  68. FPE says

    All violence is wrong regardless of the sex, but there are distinct gendered patterns in the perpetration and impact of violence, with 95% of all victims of violence in Australia reporting a male perpetrator. The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence and sexual assault are perpetrated by men against women, and this violence is likely to have more severe impacts on females than males.
    More serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners.
    (Reference: ourwatch)

    How does “feminism”, which is basically about gender equality have anything to do with the opinion that men are seen as “natural” victims of homicide? I’d say it has more to do with gender differences, due to social, cultural and biological factors ie. testosterone, levels of self control, men’s evolutionary tendency toward risk and violent behaviour, maturity gap, sex differences in activity, social support, or gender equality. Statistics from UNODC show that men commit more criminal and delinquent acts than women. Also men commit more serious or violent crimes resulting in injury or death than women.

    Also the words “female victims” reinforce the viewpoint that females are victims. They’re not.

  69. KD says

    Let’s take it farther, shall we?

    I imagine that in the post-industrial employment setting of the West, most of the jobs are of the menial, white collar “data pusher” and service variety, and I suspect that women, in general, make better employees, more agreeable and less trouble than males. No arguments about pay raises, less worries about trade unions, less generation of sexual harassment complaints.

    That is to say, that in most aspects of the modern economy, women are simply more desirable employees than most men. That is to say, men are not only disposable, but being disposed of and replaced by women, and the trend will only likely become more pronounced as the economy shifts away from production. X-Box, Sex Bots, suboxone oh my!

  70. Pingback: Considering the Male Disposability Hypothesis | 3 Quarks Daily

  71. Phil says

    Funny – in the country I ran away from 22 years ago I was a Jew. A big handicap. Now I am a white “cisgender” male and a Jew. Number of handicaps increased. Nevertheless, I did pretty well. It requires more than antisemitic society or a bunch of feminist loons to put me down!

  72. “The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence and sexual assault are perpetrated by men against women, and this violence is likely to have more severe impacts on females than males.
    More serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners.”
    (Reference: ourwatch)

    My understanding of the data coming from Canada is that in point of fact, more men suffer from domestic violence than women.

    “Now, as Lysova peels back the layers of Canada’s General Social Survey data on intimate partner violence (IPV), she and her colleagues have uncovered that 418,000 Canadian males and 341,000 females report being victims of physical or sexual spousal violence.

    Along with Eugene Emeka Dim, a PhD student at the University of Toronto, Lysova presented their findings this week at the University of B.C.’s large Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences.

    The duo’s talk was titled “The hidden realities of men’s and boy’s victimization.” It was based on work they and others have had published in top journals, about a phenomenon they now realize occurs in countries around the world.”

  73. Man Splainer says

    Thanks to feminists, I opted out of marriage and family to live a life free of women’s power and control. Feminists, the mouth piece of womanhood, couldn’t have made it any more obvious that men weren’t welcome. I have never regretted that decision. I’m retired early and wealthy as a result a live blissfully free of women’s drama. Any man who gives a woman legal or financial power over their lives needs serious mental health intervention. Marriage for men is persona non grata. Feminists dictates have destroyed countless millions of men’s lives, probably just as many as courtly love, gynocentrism, chivalry and male disposability, for which I believe feminism is just an adaptation. Am very grateful that the male-only draft was ruled unconstitutional as it’s little more than gender based male human sacrifice, cleverly disguised as honor, chivalry and male disposability.

  74. A very tired woman says

    One of the reasons women advocate for other women is to help them escape those situations where men inflict harm and pain. We are also taught the threat that men are traditionally expected to protect us from is other men.
    Although not all husbands are protectors, some are violent to their wives. I think there are more women living in true fear of their husbands than vice versa. Sometimes freedom from marriage is the best outcome for the woman.

    The large number of men and boys being victimized (ie child soldiers) are in situations where men inflict harm and pain. The dictators, drug lords, and those who run these armies are largely men. Men are inflicting the suffering. Men provoke the wars.

    The biggest threat to women is men. The biggest threat to men is men.

    That’s what I don’t get. Surely there are enough good men in the world to stop ALL the victimization?

  75. Paeris Kiran says

    that is superbly simple.

    It takes a female 9 months to produce at best 2-3 offsprings.
    conversly one male can produce virtually infinite amount of offspring with as many females as possible.

    now – from genetical point of view its quite obvious which is more expendable to fight in wars and what needs to be protected as limited resource.

    • A very tired woman says

      Yes and she will not (healthily) reproduce again for awhile. And she should ideally be alive while her children grow up. (Whereas as Paeris points out, the man is not considered essential beyond fertilization.)

      So men create the wars, use men to fight the wars, and the women at home are producing either other breeders or other soldiers. As long as there are wars, there will be soldiers (and I don’t mean volunteer armies or so-called American militias) through force, coercion, patriotism (about borders and ethnicities). Men could stop male disposability, but I think certain men (warlords, some presidents) like a segment of their population to be disposable.

      It all seems a little counterproductive, an endless loop.
      If we could stop the wars, imagine what we could do with all that time and energy and manpower.

  76. Jesse says

    The idea that men “create” wars is asinine. War is the result of irreconcilable political differences. For 99% of human history, every war has the same three basic causes: population pressure, limited resources, and language barriers between societies. It was nobody’s fault.

  77. A very tired woman says

    Someone decides to attack the other country, for reasons of territory as you say. That army is led by men, the leaders on both sides men. War is a man’s domain.

    Has there ever been a play similar to Lysistrata? but with roles reversed?

    (Women have never been the majority of leaders, so the few women in history were still playing the man’s game.)

    • Dam says

      There has only been one time when the world had 7 prime ministers or presidents at the same time. All 7 of them went to war.

  78. John Robinson says

    The author could preface each mention of “men” with “black” or “brown” and the hypothesis would be strengthened even more but pointing out the racial dimension is politically incorrect here at Quillette.

Comments are closed.