I’m seeing a disturbing rise in guys droning on about how “disposable” men are. This is a questionable viewpoint that does not help you achieve your goals in life or understand the current situation we face. At the same time, it puts pussy high up on the pedestal, brainwashing you into believing that a woman’s life is more valuable than your own. This is a “beta” element to the red pill that aligns itself perfectly with feminist ideology.
This line of thought attempts to use evolutionary theory to explain the differences between the sexes. Since only one man is needed to continue the species, the argument goes, a woman’s womb is much more important when it comes to reproduction. In times when we lived in tribes of less than 200 people, this argument would have more strength, but only up to a point—a tribe of one man and 199 woman may find it impossible to hunt or protect itself from predators or other tribes. Only when you look at humanity through a narrow lens of reproduction in times of low population numbers and complete lack of environmental threats does a penis definitely have less worth than a vagina.
When you start to account for the survivability of the tribe overall, which is composed of much more than reproduction, the presence of men were absolutely crucial. Since no tribe has had a conscious goal of exponential growth, in some cases it’s possible to adopt the argument that losing one woman would have been less damaging to a tribe’s long-term survival rate than losing one man, especially in tribes that lacked loafers or social justice warriors. I have not come across data that declares with certainty that men were indeed “disposable,” as in expendable, worthless, and needless in humanity’s march to dominate the planet.
In modern times, with a world population of 7 billion, which is 6.99 billion more than humans need to continue propagating the species, women have no additional biological worth than men. None. You could kill three billion women tomorrow and the human species won’t die off (though it would be insanely hard to get laid).
Both men and women are disposable due to the population numbers we have now, so arguing that a random woman on the street is less disposable today than a man is imprecise, degrading to men, and disturbing cynical while providing no insight into understanding anything related to the goals men pursue today. Thinking of yourself as disposable is quite close to adopting feminist ideology whereby women are held as infallible and superior creatures.
You gotta laugh at the idea that the world in 2014 must sacrifice the life of a man before a woman’s in order to somehow preserve humanity, but this is what “men are disposable” advocates are insinuating. In an ultra-specific low population scenario, the value of a woman can be higher, but we haven’t seen that in tens of thousands of years, and we definitely don’t have it today.
While most people who exist are standard issue consumer zombies, we can educate and train ourselves to make a difference in this world, to push through the fabric of human existence and get a response back. The red pill helps us understand our reality, but sometimes it loses the big picture and propagates flawed reasoning in attempts at seeking wisdom. I agree that a woman is biologically more valuable when it comes to reproduction, but not by much, and not in a way that applies today. Men are needed just as much now as when humanity began. It’s mostly feminists—those who believe in female superiority—who want to try and convince you otherwise.
Read Next: The End Game Of Feminism