The concept of the disposable man begs a question: is right and wrong different for the genders?
As a man, I grew up with narratives of being good, honorable, and doing the right thing. The right thing often followed themes of helping those in need or at least not hurting those weaker than you. Good men were prepared to sacrifice themselves and their needs in the service of others.
There is a theory that has been present for possibly all of civilized life: As long as there are wars to fight, men will die to protect women. It makes sense in that context, following the traditional logic. If two tribes fight and 90% of the men are killed, they could still repopulate if the women survived. Not as much so if 90% of the women were killed.
It’s not that men instinctively have some desire to die. Men have the same programming as every other living creature: to stay alive as long as possible. In order to get men to give up their lives willingly to these causes, incentive structures had to be put in place. A sense of mass brainwashing. After all, the men with the highest status got to play by a different set of rules and could avoid a battlefield altogether if it suited them. No, this brainwashing was for the average man, the lowly man, to stand on the front lines and face death for a cause that they don’t fully understand and likely wouldn’t benefit them. That incentive structure became honor and duty.
As history played out, honor and duty became inseparable from soldier narrative. In the wider society, it was celebrated that men lay down their lives for country, in service of women and children. Women expect this level of devotion from men. The willingness to sacrifice themselves and stand in front of danger became table stakes for a relationship, and when men didn’t rise to the occasion, they were shamed and dishonored, justifying all manner of repercussions from infidelity and divorce, reputation or career destruction, all the way to exile.
As war evolved and the need for a large population to be involved in the military, the definition of danger shifted. It shifted from violent enemies to discomfort. The inability to provide levels of security and excess on par with the surrounding community was seen as a weakness, even if that man would be willing and able to fight a legion of foreign invaders. Honor was no longer a game of sacrifice, but skill.
Women are not the oppressors in this story, though. They, too, were brainwashed in their own way to support this narrative of honor. After all, they were the prize. They were whom all the men fought for and to protect. They were encouraged to value and reward these honorable men. They were given in marriage solely for the advantages attached to honor. They were taught that their best chance at security against the enemy forces was having an honorable and competent protector locked in. It wasn’t easy on women and led to many of the systems that are labeled as patriarchal today. Their honor was defined by their loyalty and service to their husbands and families.
Again, as history progressed and constant wars and land grabs became less common, this narrative continued on. Security was redefined, and many women had an option to escape the duty to marry an honorable man and keep them. They had the option to chase what made them fulfilled outside of the life of a “prize.” They were free to set their own standards of what they wanted in a mate, if they wanted one at all, or even seek their own honorable status in the same games as men. This was new because while women warriors have had their places throughout history, it was not the norm globally, due to their effectiveness in direct combat and the whole population dilemma.
This idea of honor created two completely different sets of goals between men and women. For men, be brave and ready to sacrifice. Protect and provide. Be useful, and thus, honorable, and that is your key to success. For women, it was to identify a man who could protect them and offer resources and security. The problem then becomes longevity. If a man’s primary goal is to protect and serve, the likelihood that they will be killed in the line of duty is relatively high. If the man is killed, his goal is met and his role comes to an abrupt end, but leaves the woman with the same goal of survival and the need for additional support, but now more complicated. The amount of security she needs or desires is the same, but she is down the primary means of obtaining it.
In this scenario, it would be logical and even preferential for a woman to be able to quickly obtain another honorable man to support them and take up the responsibilities the original man left behind in his death. This ever-present possibility naturally would leave women with a different way of thinking than men when it came to relationships. They always had to be protecting their reputation as a loyal and honorable woman, and simultaneously hold in mind the prospect of having to find another partner. Men, protect and serve until they die.
How could such different mentalities not produce two different forms of morality in the same environment? Men and women, while playing the economic game, had two completely different scenarios to plan for as a disposable man and a surviving woman. After all, morals are the glue that drives our decisions in a cohesive way to help us act in the best interest of ourselves and the greater world. If the ideal outcome for a man is to die with honor, and a woman is to survive to keep the population going, they will have wildly different ideas of what is morally acceptable in pursuit of their goals.
Take infidelity in this primitive model, for instance. If women are presented as the ultimate prize, desirability, and access, then being able to stray from one’s wife is almost the ultimate demonstration of being valued in society. For women, they are seeking security and survivorship. Infidelity is either an upgrade of security, in resources or emotions, or it could be a bet on survivability. Either way, the woman is seeking quality of life, whereas the man is simply seeking reward. The drive, reasoning, means, and psychology post-action for these two are wildly different. Determining what is justifiable, logical, or even moral in these two scenarios is not the same within the minds of the man and woman. How could they be other than choosing one set of logic collectively as a society and instituting some rules around them, and everyone agreeing to somewhat play along?
Fast forward to today. Male-style honor was not something the overwhelming majority of women could obtain, but they can now. Women can obtain wealth, status, and power on their own. They don’t need an honorable man to serve as the family’s status holder. They can compete directly or take the title of breadwinner. Furthermore, the likelihood of their husband dying abruptly in combat is drastically reduced. Discomfort is the real danger now. All the while, the same programming exists. Women and men both now have the option to play by one or both sets of honor, the traditionally male and the female versions, or both. How can you be sure what set of motivations is driving you or others?
As things continue to become more abstract, fluid, and complex, simplicity and consistency are the anchors that drive successful individuals and couples forward. While the rules and motivations are wildly different from a world operated on honor, the old rules do have merit. Honesty, loyalty, and the willingness to protect and serve are all things that we must embody, men and women, if we hope to have success in our lives and relationships. We must move away from a two-tier concept of honor to a model that applies equally to both genders and the population as a whole. The concept of integrity must be something that we maintain, even if the incentive structures push us in other directions.
Honor may not look the same today as it did decades or centuries ago, but it is necessary. Integrity and reputation are not as simple to obtain as notoriety online. Your social media profiles will give little to no indication of your true level of competence in your relationships, but integrity is simply defined as “the way you behave when no one is looking. So your honor is something you hold closer. Your honor is defined by your family, your community, and yourself. If you hope to live and die honorably, you have to build those three things up.