Before getting into the real topic of the article, I would like to take liberty to ask readers to have a look at this short TED video, “Dan Dennett: Cute, Sexy, Sweet, Funny” which talks about why babies are cute, babes are sexy, chocolate is sweet and jokes are funny. Contrary to popular perception, it’s not that because chocolate is sweet, we like it or because babes are sexy, guys get attracted to them or that because babies are cute, we find them adorable or because jokes are funny, we laugh at them.

In the video, philosopher Dan Dennett explains Darwin’s “Strange Inversion of Reasoning” which upholds absolute ignorance over absolute intelligence. As per that theory,

Hence we see here, that, perceptions are starkly different from reality and can be reverse at times as well. Rather than sweet things being naturally tasty there is an inclination to like sweet foods so that the body gets its quota of high energy. Mother Nature has a strange way of functioning!

Now, coming back to the topic of the article; let’s see how the same concept of “Strange Inversion of Reasoning” applies to men and their problems.

Before that, we will see some instances of invisible abuse of men,

Having seen the above instances, we will now see how this harms men and society.

All the above instances have one common under-thread; male to male violence, if it is for protecting others then it’s held in high position in the society and the Protector is hailed by one and all. Again, it is the same violent image of Protector used as a stereotypic assumption against men wherein allegations of perpetrated violence against a man by a woman are taken at face value. The accused man is punished and is not compensated if the allegations are not found to be substantial. More often than not, these allegations are used as a diversionary tactic.

Hence, the violent image of men is easily digested by the society and it actually appears that men are violent because they fight. But reality, as said earlier, is often different and opposite of perceptions. By Darwin’s “Strange Inversion of Reasoning”, it is not that men are violent because they fight to protect, but the other way round. It is because men are expected to be Protectors; they are made to turn violent by social conditioning and emotional castration.

However, there is an invisible flip side to this social behavioral pattern and attitude. As long as men indulge in violence (often against other men) in order to protect others – women, children and senior citizens – its acceptable, but if the man makes any effort to protect himself from any violence from a woman, immediately he is tagged as selfish, violent, aggressive and devilish and even basic human rights are snatched from him. He is made to feel guilty even if he’s innocent and thus he accepts the abuse therein and suffers silently. After all, he is the Protector, if he cannot PROTECT himself, how can he PROTECT others?

As explained about Male Disposability in Male Disposability – Myth or Reality, men finished off with their utility are considered disposable and their abuse becomes irrelevant for the society. Same holds good for a man trying to protect himself. As his utility as a Protector is finished off, no one bothers about blatant violation of his human rights. He is a deemed criminal and deserves only punishment.

By nature of their design, compounded with social conditioning, females are emotionally stronger, smarter and stable compared to men. It is a proven psychological fact that no violence starts physical – it’s actually the emotional violence that precedes physical violence. Going by the above analogy, any man who is accused of physical violence (even true allegations) is actually trying to protect himself. But, as explained above, a man trying to protect himself, more often than not, finds himself at the receiving end of social abuse, social neglect and social death.

Having said that, I want to categorically mention that violence (in any form be it physical or emotional) is unacceptable. However, current social setups punish only the man when he is accused of violence by a woman, whether true or false. No attempt is made to understand the root cause of violence – the emotional violence that sparked the physical violence and the visibly failed protector is given no opportunity whatsoever to protect himself.

Such a trend, poised precariously against men, is extremely harmful and is a major reason of growing resentment of men towards society, relationships and commitments. Not only that, the invisible bias that exists against men – justified due to male disposability – is devouring the stability, lifeline and lifetime of relationships. It is one of the major reasons of skyrocketing suicides by men – a glimpse of which is available at,

It is also leading to the foundation of a Fatherless Society which is ultimately leading to increased crime and is posing a threat to the national security as well.

Hence, we see that on one hand, chivalry from men is highly praised and chivalrous men are considered heroes, it’s the same chivalry which works like a necessary evil for men when it comes to their own protection.

So, the question that arises here is, “Chivalrous men cannot protect themselves?”

Let the readers ponder over this question and answer it for themselves.