u/Dear-Ad2914

What is most grotesque is how the concept of "masculinity" has been mutated into something that actively consumes a man’s own life. A social structure that demands one-sided sacrifice exclusively from men,

all for abstract notions like totalitarianism, the "nation," or the "collective," is an undeniable absurdity.

A far more severe issue than "internalized misogyny" is the deeply rooted "internalized misandry" within the male population itself. Society constantly demands that men submit to collectivism. The vast majority of men do not even realize this, exhibiting a perverted attitude where they champion the interests of the state or society over their own individual rights. This stems from being brainwashed into believing that the entirely natural instinct to pursue one's own selfish interests is a sin.

This fabrication and indoctrination surrounding gender roles have left men confused about what is actually rational and natural for the individual. Worse still, when men push back against this unjust treatment, society gaslights them and shifts the blame, claiming, "You chose this yourselves to enjoy male privilege."

There are those who invoke nature to justify traditional gender roles. However, male organisms in the natural world do not live altruistic lives, sacrificing their evolutionary fitness for unrelated strangers or the illusion of a "collective" The male sex did not evolve for such a purpose.

—unless belonging to that group yields a direct payoff, or forming a deep bond with a mate offers significant fitness benefits to themselves.

Evaluating human worth strictly by productivity and output treats people as little more than livestock stripped of autonomy. The logic of human society has differed little from the operational model of a factory farm. What is more tragic than livestock is that while animals fight and scream against slaughter until the very end, humans walk into the slaughterhouse on their two feet, blinded by the indoctrination of "faith" and "duty." The most remarkable creature humans have ever domesticated might very well be themselves.

Natural selection favors individuals that secure their own genetic interests, while weeding out those that incur fitness costs to help others. Bearing the exclusive burden of collectivism is neither a "right" nor an "honor." It is merely deception disguised to legitimize absurdity.

Take military conscription as a prime example. The system reflects solely the convenience of the state and non-conscripted demographics. Why must men alone be conscripted? If maintaining a collective is an obligation, it should naturally be shared equally by all members of society, regardless of sex.

Conservatives often justify this asymmetry using physical strength or productivity differences. However, the logic of artificially carving up individuals for the sake of society directly contradicts an individual's genetic self-interest.

Even if remaining females restore the population lost to war, what does that have to do with the genetic fitness of the men who sacrificed themselves for the group? Many men delude themselves into thinking the state's gain is their own. In reality, an individual who dies without offspring—leaving behind a genetic fitness of zero—has merely laid the groundwork for strangers and their descendants to thrive. This is not the logic of The Selfish Gene; it is pure, unadulterated collectivism.

Why don't organisms sacrifice themselves for the abstract unit known as a "species"? Because in biology, the fundamental unit of natural selection is the individual and the gene. If a species had ever evolved to sacrifice itself for a group of genetically unrelated strangers, it would have long gone extinct due to exploitation and the free-rider problem, making it impossible to observe today.

An altruistic individual is inevitably selected against in an environment overrun by cheaters, gaining zero genetic fitness. Yet, human society continuously breaks the spirit of selfish lineages through education and indoctrination, artificially turning them back into altruists. In a society where we live alongside genetically unrelated strangers, this suppression can never be beneficial to the individual.

I do not believe that the past, dominated by conservative values or patriarchy, was ever a utopia for men. Whether back then or now, only the slogans have changed—from "breadwinner" to "patriotism." The core reality of exploiting men as disposable labor and cannon fodder has never changed.

Why are men, more than any other group, unable to see their own true self-interest clearly? Why do they voluntarily become victims for the sake of an authority from which they reap no benefit? The structure in which the state preferentially conscripts men yields zero benefit from the individual's perspective—it is, for all intents and purposes, akin to a punishment.

Which is truly more rational: for an individual to submit to forced conscription without any reciprocal benefit, or to reject such a burden based on pure self-interest?

Countless societal discourses routinely ignore the individual's perspective as if doing so were entirely natural. Consequently, a bizarre structure that demands sacrifice for society, regardless of individual will, becomes normalized and justified. Must men alone be forcibly used as "cannon fodder" on the battlefield simply because they belong to the artificial construct of a nation, or due to physical differences compared to women?

If so, what essential benefit do men actually receive from the state and society in exchange for shouldering such a one-sided obligation? Unless men are reduced to the status of slaves, they, too, must possess the freedom to reject and oppose sex-specific state coercion.

Arguments asserting that women must remain to rebuild the population after war, that men are physically stronger, or that war has historically been a male role are frequently cited as justifications. However, modern society displays a despicable contradiction by cherry-picking traditional gender roles whenever convenient. Elements advantageous to the system are dismantled in the name of "gender equality," while the burdensome duty of sacrifice imposed on men is retained under the guise of "tradition and physical differences."

Historically, male suffrage was secured at the cost of blood, military service, and labor. Yet in modern states, completely equal rights are granted even to groups that bear no equivalent obligation of national defense. When the balance between duties and rights is fundamentally broken, can a structure that extracts one-sided sacrifices of basic rights and life exclusively from men still be called a social contract? This is not a contract; it is merely one-sided extortion and coercion by state power. What meaning or benefit does the survival of a state that tramples on individual rights and self-preservation offer to a man as an individual organism?

As a fundamental principle of the social contract, individual self-interest and the freedom to pursue one's rights must be guaranteed.

Even in this subreddit, I encountered a post arguing that exclusive sacrifice by men—not just in military service, but also for "women and children" during emergencies—is inevitable, invoking female reproductive capacity as a justification.

I emphasize once more: compromising with such collectivist rhetoric does nothing to advance men's rights and freedom.

Compromising with such gaslighting is nothing more than foolish submission—lowering oneself to align with Exploitative Collectivism (Disproportionately Absurd to Men) and passively accepting one's role as expendable fuel to run society without receiving anything in return.

If we truly desire freedom for men, rather than compromising with entrenched conservative sentiments, we must fundamentally dissect and destroy the gaslighting and manipulative rhetoric that dominate society.

Edit: Rephrased a couple of paragraphs to clarify my points and add nuance—specifically regarding evolutionary self-interest, pair-bonding, and totalitarianism. I wanted to make it clear that I’m critiquing exploitative collectivism rather than fair, reciprocal communities.

Why does the dominant definition of masculinity demand that men sacrifice themselves to protect and provide for groups and others? From my perspective, mainstream societal concepts regarding gender are far from reflecting individual desires or natural mechanisms. Rather, they are cultural constructs promoted to maintain social order.

While society places immense emphasis on female reproductive capacity, it simultaneously imposes far harsher burdens and expectations on men when it comes to public duties and sacrifice. However, from the perspective of an individual man, an unrelated stranger is ultimately just someone with whom he shares no connection.

Why does society force unconditional service and sacrifice on a specific gender for people with whom they share no blood relations? Men who endure hardship in the name of the "greater good" are essentially making choices that work against their own self-interest, laboring for those to whom they bear no relation.

If the true goal were overall societal welfare, it would be far more reasonable for both men and women to contribute equally to public duties, rather than relying on the unilateral sacrifice of one gender.

This sentiment does not consider individual perspectives; instead, it appears designed solely to serve the interests of an establishment rooted in collectivism.

Historically, encouraging men and women to form households and anchoring the male population within the societal framework originated from the need to secure a continuous supply of labor and defensive strength. In nature, most organisms do not risk their lives or resources to assist individuals with whom they have no mating bond or blood relationship.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, there is no adaptive reason to invest in another individual's genetic lineage.

In most animal species, females hold the power of mate choice precisely because males—unlike human men—provide little to no assistance in raising offspring. This phenomenon is well explained by Robert Trivers’ Parental Investment Theory.

However, the concept of parental investment is not limited to initial biological costs like pregnancy and birth, as those upfront costs alone cannot account for the total expense of reproduction.

The practical cost of rearing offspring encompasses ongoing, resource-intensive activities such as self-preservation, resource acquisition, and protection of the young.

Unlike other males that simply desert after mating, human males make substantial parental investments—providing continuous resources and protection for their partners and children—largely due to culturally established monogamous norms.

Therefore, the claim that "men make less of a reproductive and parenting investment than women" is by no means valid in human society. For most male mammals, masculinity simply entails competing with rivals, securing mating rights, and abandoning the female immediately after.

Compared to males in the natural world, masculinity in human culture is a far more subdued or socially neutralized form of instinctual desire.

Mainstream society has continuously ignored the biological and genetic perspectives of men. In the biological realm, the male sex does not exist merely to serve or support females; like all other living organisms, males exist to pursue their own survival and self-interest.

Just as many women in modern society have broken free from traditional notions of femininity, men should likewise be free to break away from the rigid shackles of enforced masculinity and choose their own paths.

Actually, funny enough, I still play Minecraft on 1.5.2 because the latest version of Minecraft is not fun, I just don't know why, there have definitely been a lot of updates, but I still like 1.5.2 better.