[atmavatar]

Men are biologically disposable. If a nation lost 90% or better of its adult male population, it could still bounce back within a generation or two.

Women have no incentive to change that, and the small fraction of men powerful enough to change it can already exempt themselves from the meat grinder. The remaining men's opinions don't matter.

[pfannkuchen]

So this definitely works for hunter gatherers and that’s definitely how humans are architected, I agree.

However, if I think through what this process would look like under modern living arrangements, what would happen? Intensified serial polygamy with a massive increase in single motherhood? Full on polygamy?

Our social structures aren’t really set up to handle that. It seems like it would be so bad for society that I wouldn’t really say men are “disposable” under the current arrangement. More like they are the roof and women are the foundation, maybe.

It’s better to lose your roof than your foundation, sure, but losing your roof is still really bad. It does not really compare to, say, throwing out a paper coffee cup.

[sunshine-o]

> If a nation lost 90% or better of its adult male population, it could still bounce back within a generation or two.

Yes in theory, no in practice for Europe.

Europe population and society collapsed 2 generations after WWII. We are literally discussing the consequences of the collapse here and now.

People also forget European societies were already starting to collapse after WWI as the consequence of a large proportion of the men population being killed or wounded.

[throwawayfhj]

If a nation lost 90% of their men, they would be completely doomed. As men are the ones that actually build and maintain basically all the infrastructure and have all the jobs that are actually indispensable.

A nation wouldn't lose anything for not having personal to do all those comfy PR, HR, "therapist", etc, etc, jobs created for modern "progressive" societies to pretend women are just as indispensable in the work place as men.

But it would be completely wrecked if there weren't enough men to build and maintain houses, habitation, do the all the heavy jobs, take care of waste, infrastructure maintenance, work on the energy industries, etc, etc, etc.

[hattimaTim]

"Men are biologically disposable. If a nation lost 90% or better of its adult male population, it could still bounce back within a generation or two.", and who told you this? You expect the 10% remaining population who also do the dirty politics and are powerful by dirty means, will bounce back the country? Men's value comes from their ability for leadership, adventurous, innovative, fearless and rebel mindset. Does women have enough testosterone for these?

[znpy]

And farewell gender equality I guess.

[postsantum]

German women as capable as men, btw. How about to stop this sexist bullshit

[array_key_first]

It's not about capability, it's about value.

Women's lives are valuable, men's are not. This has been the case across basically all societies in human history. Losing a ton of men really doesn't matter too much - especially young, family-less men.

Losing a lot of women, though, is really really bad.

[postsantum]

I was informed that we are all equal. Plenty of wartime occupancies carry no risk of dying, like being a nurse

[znpy]

> Plenty of wartime occupancies carry no risk of dying, like being a nurse

Isn't that reinforcing a gender stereotype? I was told we were against that kind of things around here.

[Sabinus]

One woman can have one child a year. One man can have hundreds of children a year.

This isn't sexist, it's reality. It's the rationale for male conscription and male disposability.

[dogemaster2026]

Capable at what? In war fighting context is very important. Some combat operations are better left to strong men.