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.