Men are Disposable in the Eyes of Society, and Always Have Been, but is it Still Necessary?


The role of the man has always been to protect women and children in order to ensure the continuity of the human race. From birth, men are trained to ready themselves for an early grave and to not care about their own well being. First we'll talk about the history of this phenomenon, then we'll talk about why it is important for the human race, and finally we'll ponder its usefulness in today's society.

Men are Disposable in the Eyes of Society, and Always Have Been, but is it Still Necessary?

Historical Roles of Man and Woman

Men are larger and more aggressive than women. Duh. Women are physically weaker and seemingly more nurturing than men, right? Which roles automatically populate in your mind when these traits are evident? The man hunts large game and defends his family while the woman gathers food, plants crops, etc. That seems pretty straightforward, yeah? But what about danger?

Millions of years ago, danger was everywhere (it is the same today, but less of an issue). The more dangerous an area was, the more necessary men became and the more patriarchal their tribes would be and the more accepted polygamy was. If the tribe was constantly threatened by beasts of nature - big cats, etc. - they needed those strong men to fight them off, then the women would cook 'em up.

But as humans began to fan out, they found areas that were less dangerous, which made tribes less dependent on man for protection, lowering their value for the tribe. These tribes became egalitarian and promiscuity came soon after. But even with less dangerous natural disasters, such as a bear creeping up on camp, there was always the threat of invasion from other tribes - warfare.

Because of this, it was vital to the tribe that men be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to protect the women and children. Where do you think the term "women and children first" came? It wasn't because of "chivalry" or "manners" - it was a necessity to ensure the survival of the human race. Period.

Men are Disposable in the Eyes of Society, and Always Have Been, but is it Still Necessary?

Men Learn to Value Themselves Less From Birth

From birth men are treated less valuable than women and they always have been. One man can impregnate hundreds of women, but a woman can only produce one baby roughly every year, and without the protection of man, women would not have survived as easily, nor would the children, and why? Because they aren't as powerful and aggressive as men - that's just the way it is.

A parent will turn to their son and say "stop crying, you're fine" or they might say "you need to suck it up and stop acting like a baby." Daughters, on the other hand, would get full comfort and coddling from day one. If they cried, they would be held, consoled, told it would 'be okay' and that anytime they have a problem they should ask for help. Why the difference?

Because men, in order to be men, must be told to shove their emotions, their feelings, and their pain to the side. Why? Because men are designed to sacrifice themselves in order to protect the woman and child. Women are reared in such a way to love and nurture the man and the children so that the man will make a full recovery upon injury, because once he is trained from day 1 to "suck it up" he values his health less than a woman values hers. Why do you think your husband won't ever go to the doctor or talk about his feelings with you? Want men to start opening up emotionally, then start treating boys and girls the same from an earlier age.

Men are Disposable in the Eyes of Society, and Always Have Been, but is it Still Necessary?

It's No Longer Necessary, Is It?

The modern femist movement claims women have been tormented for millions of years. They have been controlled by man and because they're so 'weak' they can do nothing about it. This is why they fight legislatively to push men to treat women as equal. Sorry to break it to the feminists, but a woman's life has ALWAYS been more valued than a man's life. Men fight our wars. Men do our dangerous jobs.

Men are twenty times more likely to die providing for their family than women. Why? Because we are disposable, therefore we do all of the hard, dangerous jobs in order to protect our families. Men love guns because they must know how to use one in order to protect their families in the event that they must put themselves in harm's way. Men offer a woman his seat because we are trained to sacrifice our comfort for their own. Men work longer hours because we are designed to provide for our families - our women and children.

Men have been dying in their line of work for millions of years, and that trend continues today. As I said before, they die at twenty times the rate of women, but there's no big push to fix that, is there? No. But when the women begin dying at increased rates at work, the government pushes legislation to try and correct the "problem". Again, men are disposable in our society, but women are not.

But is the view that men are to sacrifice themselves for women still relevant today? Should we train men, from birth, to value their health and relevance less than women? Should we continue to teach boys that their emotions and physical issues are less important than girls? Not necessarily.

Men are just as relevant as women, and any movement that wants 'equality' needs to acknowledge the differences in how we bring up men in the world and how we bring up women. No group can claim they're for equality and not address this very obvious problem, which is that men will sacrifice themselves, their life, and their health, just to protect their women and children.

I'm not saying that men should stop caring about women - absolutely not - but from a standpoint of species continuity, it's no longer necessary. Instead of focusing on how to save women from every danger under the sun, we should focus on how to foster the notion that men and women's live are valued equally. Our circumstances always change our needs and views towards certain aspects of life. Take skinny and fat men and women as an example.

Skinnier men and women are given a higher status in countries where it's more expensive to eat healthy (the US is the best example). Fatter men and women are given a higher status in countries where food is scarce. Why the difference?

Because it is a sign of status in society that either you can afford food that is healthy or afford food at all! This is true in nearly every society based upon its access to food, or a certain resource, as a whole. Given this logic, it is equally important to realize that when your species is no longer in fear of extinction, that the focus is less on training men to be disposable while valuing the lives of women over men, and more on creating a society of equality and personal fulfillment.

From a personal standpoint, I will always place myself in front of my wife and children if some dangerous situation arises, but I also acknowledge that from a societal standpoint, we no longer need to train men to desensitize themselves to death, pain, and sorrow. I will always place my wife or my children above my own needs, but I also acknowledge that I have needs too, and my wife, thankfully, views me as her equal, which means I am emotionally fulfilled in life, and these views will pass down to my son and my daughter.

I may have been trained, from birth, to value myself less than a woman, but I also know that it's more important that we train our children to view each other as equals and be willing to take care of each other as equals instead of having women feel entitled to survive while their man sacrifices himself.

Men are Disposable in the Eyes of Society, and Always Have Been, but is it Still Necessary?

The Difference in the Male Role Today

The main difference between our society today and society of yester-year, given that men are still trained to be disposable, is that they are no longer appreciated for these traits. Manhood and manliness used to be valued, and even celebrated, both by women and men, but that is no longer true (for the most part).

Women of today (not all women) expect a man to bend over backwards and give her everything, but no longer rewards his sacrificial role in society. Even veterans are not celebrated as they once were. Our societies do not value military status in the way warrior status was once valued. Women no longer push to truly care for the men that offer their lives for the continuation of a female's life. Yes, it is true that there are a lot of women today that still value manhood, but it is also true that feminism - even though we are legally equal as genders - is pushing to look down upon manliness and to emasculate men and to turn men into things they expect to sacrifice their lives for women, give all their resources to women, yet receive little to no appreciation for that role.

I believe this is a problem in society, but I believe it will be fixed when the next major war and depression hits. Once the danger of female death is increased, and the scarcity of resources are apparent, feminism will fall to the wayside and the role of manliness and manhood will rise to its celebrated status as it should be.

So the next time you, as a woman, wish your husband would open up emotionally, remember that we have been trained to shove all of our emotions and complaints to the backs of our minds. We have to do this in order to forget about our inevitable demise for your safety.

We have been created, taught, and treated as disposable beings here to serve the female continuity of life. We are your protectors. We are your providers. We always have been, and always will be. All that we ask is for the respect and reverance that we deserve for our sacrifice for the continuity of our species, of our women, and of our children.

Men are Disposable in the Eyes of Society, and Always Have Been, but is it Still Necessary?
Add Opinion

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • ArtDent
    Why, after understanding reality, do you still have a willingness to be a drone? Were your eyes opened before or after getting married and having children?
    • BigPunny

      I guess I don't understand the question based on the myTake. This is simply our biological role, but the question is - is the role necessary still given that our society is in no real danger of extinction via continued death of women and children.

    • ArtDent

      What motivates you to acquiesce to the role of being used and abused?
      Do you believe the sacrifice would be returned?
      Why would you bring a boy into this world?

    • BigPunny

      "What motivates you to acquiesce to the role of being used and abused" - I never said that I was, but I would willingly give my life to protect the lives of my wife and my two children. That's my role in life. I provide, I teach, and I protect. I also nurture and respect.

      But that's kinda' the point - I receive acknowledgment and praise from my family for the value I hold within my own family. But as a whole, society does not value men, which is why we see this big push to strip the rights of men as parents, to strip the role of masculinity, and to push for a matriarchal society.

      "Why would you bring a boy into this world" - to give something to society that will benefit everyone as a whole, and I truly believe that. I raise my children with manners, respect, but also with the ability to stand their ground - both of them.

      The hope is that the more parents raise their children to be better than they were, the better the generations following mine will be.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    Well, I've been married for 7-8 years now, and my husband has never shown the slightest indication of being my savior if that time should come. He completely takes care of himself first, and always puts himself first. If there's anything left, I can have it. But otherwise he comes first.
    Not that I would ever let him sacrifice himself for me, or ask him to support me. I always do my best to not put him in those kinds of situations and I always use all of my resources so I don't become a burden to him. But it would feel so much nicer if he made a protective/supportive gesture every now and then, even if it was a fake situation or a very small just attempt.
    He cries too.
    Anyway, I know this is irrelevant to your take, but reading it I felt a great disappointment at not being fortunate enough to have that kind of strength at my back.
    If there's one guy who is an exception to those rules, I managed to find him. But he can be your hero at least. A male who just "isn't interested" in supporting females and doesn't care what becomes of them. He's taken good revenge on all mens behalf.
    Sorry for the negativity. I was trying to gain insight into guys' world. I should have just observed what you said and tried to remember your useful information. But I just felt really bad, and wanted to say something about it, and also give you hope that the different kind of guy exists too. And they're growing in number, and pretty soon there won't be any caring guys left on the planet.
    (I despise feminists by the way, they are too extreme and unrealistic.)
    • BigPunny

      You bring up a good point, and it has a lot to do with the last part of the myTake. When man's sacrificial role is no longer valued in society, and there's a big push against masculinity (and there really is), then what is a man to do? He's getting screwed in both directions, so it's likely many of them turn selfish, which is how one could describe the female's role for so many years - not that their role of self-preservation was a bad thing because it wasn't, but that's my point.

      It's almost like the roles are reversing as we move towards a more matriarchal society. And I believe the men in which you just described will become more common until something major happens, causing a societal shift in roles once again.

      I'm curious - does your husband's mom have a feminist mindset? I've come to notice those that grew up around the 'woman power' movement often struggle internally. It's mostly a subconscious thing, but still.

      Again, that's just a thought - I have no proof of that.

  • Anonymous
    Good take, if a bit opinionated.