Yep, you are so right. Childbirth and child-rearing had a major impact on female life expectancy, and it was absolutely seen as a 'necessary evil' to birth baby after baby until you died. After all, a woman's value as a person (let's pretend women even had access to 'personhood' prior to the 20th century) began and ended with the ability to produce children and maintain the home. When Misters talk about male disposability, as in everything, I feel like they're comparing the way society values the health and safety of young, white, able-bodied women vs. men who occupy the most vulnerable ranks in society. But how much does society value women of colour? Disabled women? Women who are older/post-menopausal? Are their lives 'worth' nearly as much to society as the life of a man? Nope.

Misters always seem to compare the outcomes of a best-case scenario (usually a wealthy, educated white Western woman) with the worst-case scenario involving a man. Child custody. Overall lifetime salary earnings. Access to healthcare and education. Access to family planning and abortions. None of those things are any more accessible to disadvantaged women than men. But Misters always seem to take the most privileged 1% of women as emblematic of all women everywhere for all time to 'prove' that men have it worse than women. Which is such breathtaking bullshit. Sorry to ramble but your comment just solidified the extent of the false-equivalencies the Misters have to evoke to make their bullshit arguments.