look, men are disposable. and it's always been this way, biologically speaking. throughout most of history, mens' purpose was disposability - through soldiering, exploring, entrepreneurialism (the high risk / high reward activities), or just working your fuckin' ass to the bone in the fields of fealty or a in a grey cubicle (the low risk / low reward activities).
let's define some terms. "meaning of life" (note i didn't say purpose) = reproduction, as far as anyone can tell. a single man can impregnate scores of women, and then die the very next day. the same can't be said of the female reproductive paradigm. for full replacement rate-of-birth, damn near every female is needed, and the other 99 men aren't... technically. however --
modern society has attempted to socially engineer this hasty biological truth out of male populations - it attempts to normalize male achievement and distribute the proceeds in a more equal manner. hence the social traditions and mores that have come to define the last few centuries (i call it the 3 M's - marriage, mortgages, and missionary)
furthermore, society interprets "men" as the top (physically, socially, financially) 20% of men, the men who make a real dent in the world and who override the general perception of masculinity in society. the high achievers, the genetically gifted, the powerful. the stereotypical 'man'.
however, the truth is most men aren't that archetype. most men are workhorse peons that get the shit end of the deal, having to endure living a modern subsistence lifestyle that consists of cheap housing, cheap food, cheap relationships, cheap labor. our (i hesitate to say western? i mean these days it's all over the fucking world) society has so far successfully plastered over this truth with an embarrassment of material and technological wealth (especially tech wealth in the last 10 years, for goodness' sake think of how many hours one could waste in imaginary world of all sorts), but the ruse may be soon up.
it's true and you can verify it just by looking around - the rest of us men are either invisible, relegated to uncelebrated mediocrity, or become hermits of some sort or another. it's extremely difficult as a man to reconcile the societal and sometimes familial expectations of being into the top 20%, and the slow burn of your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, straight into the bottom half of society.
to me it's absolutely clear why men decide to check-the-fuck-out, whether through technological, societal, or mortal means. we shouldn't be focusing on the problems, which are clear as day, we should be focusing on the solutions. i fear that my industry (tech, software, automation, whatever you want to call it), in which i am a vanishingly minor, yet complicit conspirator, has only hit the accelerator on the depreciation and obsolescence of the vast majority of men.
There's nothing like a large population of angry young men who are under-employed and over-educated. The Arab Spring/chaos started with a guy lighting himself on fire because he didn't have work, and a lot of the fundamentalist appeal over there is that at least it gives you a purpose.
I've often thought this, every now and then you get a guy that goes off (shooting spree, whatever) - one of these days, one of those people who go off the deep end may be an extremely technically gifted, it would be scary what sort of havoc that type of a person could wreak if they set their mind to it.
Women have been disposable throughout history too. Even in societies that respected women, maternal mortality (death during childbirth) was pretty common (and still is in the US). In societies that didn't like having so many women, abortion or infanticide were/are common (see sex ratios in China and India today).
Men get killed in wars and at work. Women get killed in wars and having babies. Both are exposed to different kinds of violence (men in the street, women at home). In your paradigm of meaning of life = reproduction, you fail to point out that women are disposable after they've squeezed out a kid. And whether they want to squeeze out a kid? You don't even ask.
Your dystopian view is not fun for anyone, let me assure you.
You say maternal mortality was pretty common and still is in the US. It's actually quite rare in the US. Maybe slightly higher than other countries, but still incredibly rare. 28 our of 100,000. So where are you getting your numbers?
You also say that women get killed in wars and "having babies." Like I already showed you, women do not generally get killed having babies. And FAR more men die in service to their respective countries than women do. Laughably, ridiculously, far more men. Sure, an equal number of women and men die in bombings and civilian gunfire, but that's not the result of social or biological norms, that's just the result of random bombs and gunfire.
Finally, you say that men are exposed to violence in the street, and women at home? Actually, both men and women are exposed to violence in the street, and both men and women are exposed to violence at home.
I think the parent meant something different. Men were "disposable" in the sense that they went to fight wars (whereas women were only killed when the wars were lost, and even then many would just be raped/kidnapped, not killed). Women dying at childbirth had nothing to do with cultural norms, it was simply incurable (until recently).
Statistics show that 60% of women reproduced, historically, as opposed to 40% of men. Now, it's possible that there's some artefact in the data, but the obvious explanation confirms parent's logic.
Since you're saying it without saying it, let's simplify and summarize:
> furthermore, society interprets "men" as the top (physically, socially, financially) 20% of men, the men who make a real dent in the world and who override the general perception of masculinity in society. the high achievers, the genetically gifted, the powerful. the stereotypical 'man'.
I.e. Alpha males. Women are biologically programmed to go for them, and that's a good thing for our society's fitness.
> however, the truth is most men aren't that archetype. most men are workhorse peons that get the shit end of the deal, having to endure living a modern subsistence lifestyle that consists of cheap housing, cheap food, cheap relationships, cheap labor.
I.e. Beta males. Sounds awful to be one right? But by definition they are the majority.
Now here's where it gets interesting. The "3 M's" as you mention, i.e. marriage, is a social construct used to incentivize Beta males to be productive. Marriage attempts to create an artificial 50/50 male/female pairing so that the vast majority of men have incentives to be productive and contribute towards society.
Societies which did not have this feature did not succeed throughout history.
Now we reach an interesting point in the 21st century, where by we have so much abundance that female needs are becoming decoupled. Note what I said above: females naturally seek the top of men, but society pressures them to consummate with average men to achieve 50/50. This deal was easier to sell in the past because women generally needed male providers to do the things they wanted: survive comfortably, start a family, etc.
Guess what? That is no longer so. Just read the original story: the now ex-wife has everything she needs, husband not included. His "meaning of life" was reduced to nothing. I'm not saying he's a victim though: I believe everyone has the responsibility to examine the incentives for or against them, understand the nature of those they interact with, and act accordingly. Social conditioning prepared him for the life of clueless provider though, and that sure didn't help him.
What women are encouraged to do now is roughly as follows. Chase those top X% Alpha men during their youth, when their beauty allows for it. Two options are possible: best case scenario, lock down the high value man. Fat chance though, with female sexual liberation, these men can just keep having an abundance of relationships with other young and pretty girls.
The other option is more common for women: hit about 30, coupled with a decline in beauty (which IMO is more linked to career stresses than the age) and then decide to "settle down" with a more provider type. Maybe he even has the "dad bod". I figure that must be a good marker for women to look for around this time, so it makes sense they'd encourage it.
Imagine this for a second. You eat gourmet food for 10 years straight, and then suddenly you have to switch to microwave TV dinners. Would you feel a little resentment? Would you ever have cravings for your previous diet?
In summary, when it comes to happiness and relationships, it's very important to understand the desires and incentives of others, as well as that of your environment. This is also the only way to minimize your exposure to tragedy.
let's define some terms. "meaning of life" (note i didn't say purpose) = reproduction, as far as anyone can tell. a single man can impregnate scores of women, and then die the very next day. the same can't be said of the female reproductive paradigm. for full replacement rate-of-birth, damn near every female is needed, and the other 99 men aren't... technically. however --
modern society has attempted to socially engineer this hasty biological truth out of male populations - it attempts to normalize male achievement and distribute the proceeds in a more equal manner. hence the social traditions and mores that have come to define the last few centuries (i call it the 3 M's - marriage, mortgages, and missionary)
furthermore, society interprets "men" as the top (physically, socially, financially) 20% of men, the men who make a real dent in the world and who override the general perception of masculinity in society. the high achievers, the genetically gifted, the powerful. the stereotypical 'man'.
however, the truth is most men aren't that archetype. most men are workhorse peons that get the shit end of the deal, having to endure living a modern subsistence lifestyle that consists of cheap housing, cheap food, cheap relationships, cheap labor. our (i hesitate to say western? i mean these days it's all over the fucking world) society has so far successfully plastered over this truth with an embarrassment of material and technological wealth (especially tech wealth in the last 10 years, for goodness' sake think of how many hours one could waste in imaginary world of all sorts), but the ruse may be soon up.
it's true and you can verify it just by looking around - the rest of us men are either invisible, relegated to uncelebrated mediocrity, or become hermits of some sort or another. it's extremely difficult as a man to reconcile the societal and sometimes familial expectations of being into the top 20%, and the slow burn of your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, straight into the bottom half of society.
to me it's absolutely clear why men decide to check-the-fuck-out, whether through technological, societal, or mortal means. we shouldn't be focusing on the problems, which are clear as day, we should be focusing on the solutions. i fear that my industry (tech, software, automation, whatever you want to call it), in which i am a vanishingly minor, yet complicit conspirator, has only hit the accelerator on the depreciation and obsolescence of the vast majority of men.