It is time we set our priorities straight as we forge on with the daunting task of combating male disposability. I say this in light of the fact that too often, there are those in the men’s issues sphere that seem to have a difficult time letting go of male disposability. By this, I mean that some keep falling back to the disposable traditional male roles as prescribed masculine values. Here is something to consider for those who are wondering who are the ones clinging on to male sacrifice even as they seem to speak against it.
If you allege to speak out against male disposability, and fight back against how sacrificially men are treated, then the worst mistake you can make is to couple it with the following sentiment: “Men have evolved and are hardwired to sacrifice themselves”.
The entire point of being against male disposability is to counter and expose the biogynocentric narrative that says “According to science, men are rightly made to self-destruct for the service of women/society”. However, the argument from sacrificial hardwiring works as a direct appeal to said biogynocentric reduction of male being. One cannot fight male disposability unless they stop treating it like it is, or was, a virtue. It should be regarded as misandric to even contemplate that the expense of a man leads to anything wonderful.
The attempt to argue on men’s behalf by invoking the fact that they have sacrificed, in other words consigned their life to others’ ends, begs the question of who it is supposed to appeal to. Including this appeal in an attempt to counteract male disposability is a contradictory act.
If you are complaining about the fact that male disposability is not thanked, then there is no sense in purporting to be against male disposability. You just want women to appreciate it again…and for male disposability to continue as it’s been. Think about who you’re trying to convince to be thankful about male disposability – what kind of person would that be?
Be it the self-proclaimed traditionalist woman that “wants men to be men again” and do sacrificial things, or the feminist that not only has stopped appreciating men for their disposability but are at the same time thankful of their disposal, the woman you are appealing to intends to use and discard men. By design or by accident, the intent to see an end to male disposability is nowhere to be seen.
The above can also be regarded as the argument from history. At least, history as they’ve conditioned themselves to see it. The narrative men and women alike have beaten into their minds is that historically, male sacrifice has built civilization. What they have failed to consider is that a society or culture that requires and thrives on male disposal (or disposal of anyone in it), is the opposite of a proper understanding of civilization. What builds civilization? The absence of disposal of its subjects.
The sacrifice of men as a societal function is a symptom of a tyrannical society designed to hold up one ruler, one group, or a set of groups; all permutations which can be said to feed off of the expendable Others. However, a free society is by definition built and maintained by free agents trading with one another. No trade, at least none that’s free, involves one party or the other in an expendable position. The losses of men did not built civilization and what we may consider the best aspects of our society; what did build and maintain it was the men’s ingenuity, resource, cheerful pursuit of goals, and the rewards of it.
In addition to the alleged argument from history, there is the alleged argument from science or biology. In addition to the argument that says “It’s been done this way”, there is its close cousin: the argument that says “We simply cannot help it – it’s in our genes”.
The biogynocentric argument from evolutionary design is the appeal to male helplessness. Practically ignoring every indication that men have been browbeaten and conditioned by gynocentric dictums and volatile standards like Romantic Love, the ilk of evolutionary psychologists take the current aberrant manifestation of the relationship between men and women, pre- or post-feminist, and weave a narrative that men and women have evolved to be this way. To the delight of men who would have considered themselves lost in search of a justification for their male existence, the biogynocentric argument offers men a reason for existing: selfless service to womankind and society. And, goodness knows it’s to the absolute delight of women.
It is the appeal to male helplessness because it ignores free will, the fact that mankind has evolved to transcend instinct-based living. Another error biogynocentrists make is the overt emphasis on instinct over volition. The argument for men’s liberation must be rooted in the affirmation of free will. Instinct is, for all intents and purposes, a form of mindlessness, at least in terms of comparing it to the active human consciousness and the potential of the human mind.
Imagine taking a position against male disposability only to find yourself saying “It’s our instinct to sacrifice ourselves”. What you have said, in effect, is that males are too stupid; they can’t help but just die on impulse. In order to position yourself against male disposability, you must first recognize that disposal is not only not in the best interests of the man, but he does not have some voice in his head that he is helpless to assert his will over.
Mankind has not evolved to die on command. That is the tragedy of societal conformity, not a biological basis nor a proper basis for an individual. Men are not honeybees. There is no programming to die instinctively. Mankind has evolved to live. Not merely exist or merely survive, but to have the existential awareness to contemplate his own place in the universe, and then to explore it and enjoy its fruits. Yes, death is inevitable, and clearly humankind has had to fight to live, else they were killed. This does not mean that it is our place to be sacrificial.
The very fact that a male has a right to his own existence as both a man and a human individual is precisely why male disposability is improper to say the least. To say the most, it is abject cruelty and treatment of an entire sex as second-class citizens or much worse. It would then also be a form of female supremacy and female-centrism; most of us already know this as gynocentrism.
To then appeal to a misinterpreted past filled with male sacrifice, or the virtue-signalling phony sentiments of evopsychs, is to appeal to the nostalgia of it. One must think long and hard; is this the future and purpose in life as a male that they actually want? Who are these women that would embrace it? Hypergamists? Manipulative women? Self-proclaimed tamers and “civilizers” of men?
Let us be more blunt. If you claim to be against male disposability, stop demanding to be appreciated for being disposable. If disposability is wrong, act like it is wrong. Are you against a sacrificial existence for yourself and other males, or aren’t you? Don’t bother alleging to be against male disposability if your entire premise is “If you aren’t going to appreciate my sacrifice I’m just going to stop.” What kind of identity as a male do you profess to have if it’s just going to boil down to a means to another’s end?
Why claim to be on strike against an institution you are better of not being a part of to begin with? Why limit yourself to the role of protector and provider and worse, say you do it because it’s in your genes? This is the same contradictory attitude expressed by those who for some reason or another hold Briffault’s Law in high regard. They primarily complain about how women have rigged the game and don’t appreciate men’s role as it’s been in society, but instead of opting out of the gynocentric plantation cesspool, they seem to want to have that disposable, altruistic role with the “appreciation” from the women it supposedly had again. This is what I mean by being unable to let go of male disposability as a defining characteristic of masculinity in their mind.
Neotraditionalism, evopsych dogma, and Briffault’s Law aren’t the guideposts for men that too many think they are. Anyone that laments the fact that a sacrificial existence is not appreciated is missing the point: a sacrificial existence must be discarded entirely if men’s spirit and physical well-being are to be uplifted. The rejection of male disposability and all the dogma surrounding it is a key step to that uplift of man’s sense of spirit – which is a precise objective of the upholder of men’s well-being.
In closing, let’s condense the answers to the question asked in the title.
How to argue against male disposability – By rejecting the notion that the male human being was even designed to be disposed, to women or anyone in society. Appeal to the individual’s rights, and the virtues of the physically and spiritually intact man.
How not to argue against male disposability – By appealing to the alleged virtues of male disposal from supposedly historical or scientific contexts, thereby rendering uncertain why male disposability is to be combated to begin with.
I hope you have found value in these words and consider it a worthwhile guide.
