Definition of Sexism

[Terminal Blue]

I find this whole redpill pesuodscience worldview incredibly fascinating, because it's kind of indicative of what happens when you only see the world from one very narrow perspective and completely disregard anything that doesn't fit.

I mean, let's address the cornerstone of this ridiculousness. The 80/20 rule, which is the idea that only 20 percent of men are "alphas" and are the only ones women actually find attractive.

The funny thing about the 80/20 rule is that it is perversely untrue in a way that's actually ironic as hell. Women are actually much, much less concerned with the perceived attractiveness of a partner than men are, and tend to have a much broader and more personal definition of what an attractive man is. For a really concrete (and slightly gross) example, as heterosexual women age the average age of the men they consider most attractive rises accordingly. For heterosexual men, it does not. This means that eighty year old men will still consistently rate 18-21 year old women as the women who are most attractive to them, with very little variation for individual preference.

So yeah, there is an 80/20 rule of sorts, but it applies to women. The entire male population is singularly fixated and obsessed with a small group of young, conventionally attractive women, women whose bodies and sexuality are aggressively marketed to men via the media they consume.

Now think about how that would actually play out in an online dating context, for example. You have this huge horde of men who basically only see a tiny minority of very attractive women as viable partners and who, to put it mildly, often have an extremely confused sexual ideology whereby the claim to want relationships but can only relate to women as sexual fantasies. It's not surprising that this leads to the belief that you are some kind of genetically cursed perma-virgin and that women only want to date "jerks" or "alphas", because if you're only interested in the same tiny minority of women everyone else is already pursuing, you're probably going to encounter rejection, and if you've been fed on a diet of media about mediocre men somehow winning over the hottest girl in school by being basically average, it's probably going to hurt.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Meanwhile we get Reddit stories that are basically "I really like my boyfriend but he doesn't wipe his ass, only showers in the rain, and got weirdly hostile when I wanted to buy him a bed frame, what am I doing wrong?"

Which you may claim are all made up but swear to good I know that guy and he's the worst thing that has ever happened to multiple women.

 

[gorfias]

I find this whole redpill pesuodscience worldview incredibly fascinating, because it's kind of indicative of what happens when you only see the world from one very narrow perspective and completely disregard anything that doesn't fit.

I mean, let's address the cornerstone of this ridiculousness. The 80/20 rule, which is the idea that only 20 percent of men are "alphas" and are the only ones women actually find attractive.

The funny thing about the 80/20 rule is that it is perversely untrue in a way that's actually ironic as hell. Women are actually much, much less concerned with the perceived attractiveness of a partner than men are, and tend to have a much broader and more personal definition of what an attractive man is. For a really concrete (and slightly gross) example, as heterosexual women age the average age of the men they consider most attractive rises accordingly. For heterosexual men, it does not. This means that eighty year old men will still consistently rate 18-21 year old women as the women who are most attractive to them, with very little variation for individual preference.

So yeah, there is an 80/20 rule of sorts, but it applies to women. The entire male population is singularly fixated and obsessed with a small group of young, conventionally attractive women, women whose bodies and sexuality are aggressively marketed to men via the media they consume.

Now think about how that would actually play out in an online dating context, for example. You have this huge horde of men who basically only see a tiny minority of very attractive women as viable partners and who, to put it mildly, often have an extremely confused sexual ideology whereby the claim to want relationships but can only relate to women as sexual fantasies. It's not surprising that this leads to the belief that you are some kind of genetically cursed perma-virgin and that women only want to date "jerks" or "alphas", because if you're only interested in the same tiny minority of women everyone else is already pursuing, you're probably going to encounter rejection, and if you've been fed on a diet of media about mediocre men somehow winning over the hottest girl in school by being basically average, it's probably going to hurt.

Those women in that window you describe though? They are the gate keepers of sex. For them, there is no such thing as a female incel. If they're not getting any, it is because the wrong men are asking.

They do have better stats then men (in that window) Example: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-adults-especially-men-having-sex-less-frequently. And it is in this window that people should be getting some, falling in love, getting married, having babies and building families, communities and nations.

Non-super attractive people do eventually settle down, focus on things that matter. Otherwise the 1st world would have only a small fraction of its current population. I do keep reading the 1st world is at under replacement levels though. Given reasonable concerns of population explosion, that may not be a bad thing.

 

[stroopwafel]

I find this whole redpill pesuodscience worldview incredibly fascinating, because it's kind of indicative of what happens when you only see the world from one very narrow perspective and completely disregard anything that doesn't fit.

I mean, let's address the cornerstone of this ridiculousness. The 80/20 rule, which is the idea that only 20 percent of men are "alphas" and are the only ones women actually find attractive.

The funny thing about the 80/20 rule is that it is perversely untrue in a way that's actually ironic as hell. Women are actually much, much less concerned with the perceived attractiveness of a partner than men are, and tend to have a much broader and more personal definition of what an attractive man is. For a really concrete (and slightly gross) example, as heterosexual women age the average age of the men they consider most attractive rises accordingly. For heterosexual men, it does not. This means that eighty year old men will still consistently rate 18-21 year old women as the women who are most attractive to them, with very little variation for individual preference.

So yeah, there is an 80/20 rule of sorts, but it applies to women. The entire male population is singularly fixated and obsessed with a small group of young, conventionally attractive women, women whose bodies and sexuality are aggressively marketed to men via the media they consume.

Now think about how that would actually play out in an online dating context, for example. You have this huge horde of men who basically only see a tiny minority of very attractive women as viable partners and who, to put it mildly, often have an extremely confused sexual ideology whereby the claim to want relationships but can only relate to women as sexual fantasies. It's not surprising that this leads to the belief that you are some kind of genetically cursed perma-virgin and that women only want to date "jerks" or "alphas", because if you're only interested in the same tiny minority of women everyone else is already pursuing, you're probably going to encounter rejection, and if you've been fed on a diet of media about mediocre men somehow winning over the hottest girl in school by being basically average, it's probably going to hurt.

Men(generally speaking) are much hornier than women but don't have the luxury of choice women have. You saying it's because men are picky b/c they only want the hottest girls is bogus b/c various metrics on online dating sites have shown women are way pickier when it comes to looks. This really isn't about 80-year olds chasing 20-year old pussy but just regular guys and girls in similar age ranges.

It's simple supply and demand. There are way more male horndogs than there are women who are interested in them.

 

[Buyetyen]

Men(generally speaking) are much hornier than women but don't have the luxury of choice women have.

I get the impression you don't talk with women about sex very often. If you have these metrics, it shouldn't be a problem to show them.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[gorfias]

I'm sorry gorfias but that's just stupid. If you decide that only 20% of women are "worth your time" and will refuse to even consider that the remaining 80% could be a potential partner (sexual or relationship) then those 20% aren't gatekeeping you. You are gatekeeping you. More specifically, your very narrow definition of what you consider acceptable partners is what's keeping you from getting some action.

Again, it is in that window that you start that path to adulthood and forming nations. That is a window that matters, a lot. In that window, I would write, it is virtually impossible for a young woman to keep from getting some if she wants it. For young males in this vital stage? Not so much.

The article itself mentions that: " Unmarried, low-income, and unemployed or part-time employed men were more likely to have had no sex within the past year than those who were married, had higher income, or had jobs." followed by: “It seems like in the U.S. and elsewhere, it might be harder for a proportion of the population to establish themselves in society, in the labor market, and perhaps also in the dating market,” Ueda told Healthline.

Basically, the people that are already struggling to break into adulthood and society because of several social factors like low education and unemployment are also less likely to find partners. What you should be worried about is that young men aren't getting out of adolescence properly but are stuck in a limbo between childhood and adulthood in which they can't break out on their own by getting a job, their own home and shaping their own life apart from their parents. For some reason young women are better at this then young men, which should make us question what we are doing to make young men lag behind like this.

Do you think those young men obsess about a young woman's career credentials and that they find them wanting and therefore they don't want sex with them? I don't. But your point about why young men are falling behind is very important. At a minimum, people like Jordan Peterson are correctly noting that these young men are going through life being vilified, especially if white and without a word of encouragement.

I can't help but feel that this is the eternal problem with "Manosphere" (MRAs, MGTOWs, Red Pillers, Incels etc.). They see legitimate issues affecting men but instead of approaching them pragmatically and trying to find good ways to help men deal with hardship they jump straight at the dogmatic idea that women in general and feminists in particular are the reason men are suffering. I can sympathize with the suffering that comes from feeling you have no prospects in life but to be miserable and unable to live a rewarding life, but the Manosphere preys on this suffering to radicalize troubled men (many of whom undoubtedly are suffering from mental illness like depressions and generalized anxiety) and I find that absolutely disgusting.

Those disgusting predators exist. I'd include the PUAs, who really suck.
But your post is very blanketing a diverse group of people that at a minimum, are trying to point out problems to posit the need for sollutions. Warren Farrell, for instance, has been asking for decades: if women are entering the work force in droves, going into traditionally male jobs, are men going into traditionally female jobs: stay at home dad, nurse, stewardess, human resources, elementary school? Or are they just finding their wages cut in 1/2 as the work force doubled, unable to find a traditional male job and giving up and staying disconnected from society? Increasingly, I think they are entering those traditionally female jobs but I don't know the extent. My niece, a nurse, is currently dating a guy that is also a nurse. I am hoping they form a good partnership.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[gorfias]

There are more women then men in the US, with a ratio of roughly 98 men per 100 women. If we were just talking about couple matching it is women who would be forced into involuntary celibacy. There are plenty of lonely women out there too but we never talk about them. Women who are "in their prime" and can't find a boyfriend or get laid regularly. The problem, once again, is that a lot of men, particularly those that we are talking about in threads like these who talk of "pussy pass" and "alpha fucks, beta bucks" and all that inane bullshit, have unreasonably high standards for what they consider "acceptable" women to date or sleep with.

If you go to buy a car and refuse to look at your decently priced Toyotas, Mitsubishis and Kias because you will only drive Pure American Muscle it is not the car dealer who's gatekeeping your driving experience when he tells you that you can't afford a Ford Mustang. It is your unreasonable demands that are preventing you from driving away in a perfectly serviceable car.

Let me share an anecdote: I used to do chat RP with a guy who kept lamenting that he could never find a girlfriend. Eventually he told me that he had an 11 point list of "deal breakers" for any potential girlfriend. These included her being hot, being intelligent, being submissive and obedient to him and sharing his main interests of History, Warfare and Gaming. The guy was an asshole to begin with and right there his personality got in his way. But even if it didn't he had absolutely unreasonable demands and he kept blaming women for never giving him a chance. Reading MRA/Incel/MGTOW discussions about women always remainds me of him, because they are full of these unreasonable demands or expectations on women and absolutely no introspection.

1) When young, men outnumber women. We aren't really born 50/50. It's something like 50.5/49.5 male to female. As men die younger, by old age, there are far more women.
2) There are lonely women out there, but, your anecdote not withstanding, they are the ones refusing to settle. Check this out some 36 things she wants, including a man that must be tall enough, which is but some 15/100 of men.

Do you think a woman looking for a casual hook up obsess over the man's career credentials? Honestly, it is not a rhetorical question.

No, for that casual hookup, she is looking for men that are a 9 or 10 out of 10. What we're finding is a lot of women in this, what we can call a "fertility window" would rather share those high status men, than have a lower status male to themselves. I think/hope most men grow out of this and start focusing on things that matter. We can believe this likely as most average looking people do eventually find each other.

The problem is that their solutions are ultra-conservative shit that will never work. Women won't magically go back to giving up all the freedoms they've fought to have so that men can feel good. Farrell has a point though he's missing a ton of other factors that Faludi pointed out as early as the mid-90's that causes men to lose their jobs or be unable to find new ones. This also means that his solution (women need to be women again by going back to being indentured house servants to men) is not only absolutely ethically repulsive, it also doesn't solve the problem of industrial jobs being outsourced to Asia, of remaining jobs being increasingly automated or requiring higher learning then before.

Is that true? Did Farrell really want women to get back in the kitchen? Not what I'd heard but he's pretty prolific and I haven't read everything. He was active in the Feminist movement back in the 1970s.
Turd Flinging Monkey does want men to be aggressive and take women's voting rights away. I disagree as, if we cut off women's fair and reasonable advances, you end up with a woman that is only with you as you've cut off her only other options. What man would really want that?

So now I'm going to sound like a Real Man. The only two constants humanity knows are Death and Change and as the United States Marine Corps likes to say: Adapt or Die.

The Manosphere is a bunch of men failing to understand that their shitty Perfect Family Utopia where men where breadwinners and women made sure they came home to a tidy home, happy kids and warm meals and never spoke up against them is long gone (if it ever existed). The solution is not to undo the equality achieved by feminism or try to recreate industry jobs in the Western world. The solution is for men to realize that their preconceptions about gender, sex roles and manliness is outdated, find a new manliness that's in sync with the times and embrace the change. The Manosphere needs to Adapt or Die and it has proven utterly unable to adapt.

More blanket statements. I agree with adapt or die. Someone needs to be pointing that out, offering solutions (at a minimum, be vocal about the problems) so that people adapt, rather than fantasize about regression.

 

[stroopwafel]

Basically, the people that are already struggling to break into adulthood and society because of several social factors like low education and unemployment are also less likely to find partners.

I don't know about that. How do you explain the millions of male singles who get little to no poon like they have shown in a recent study. I don't believe for a second that is out of free choice. Most men ofcourse won't admit that they are incel when it's a social death sentence. People are also fond of lying to themselves if it allows to preserve their self-image. Women are independent and don't need a man so why not settle for the top 20%? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense from their perspective. It's the reason why women are bombarded with messages on tinder or other online dating sites and men only have some chance if they approach the most unattractive girl like you say. I agree one should have realistic expectations but even average looking girls can be very picky for the simple reason that the sausage comes cheap.

I really think it's quite simple. On average, women find men way less attractive than vice versa. It used to be that men could compensate for this by being a provider. The times changed and now this is no longer needed so women who are much pickier when it comes to looks will no longer give most men a chance. Men must then try and 'impress' women with status and money or some other kind of social validation(primarily fame or popularity) to appeal to old instincts. Most men ofcourse can't conform to this so they either resign to fate(ie the millions of singles) or implode on the internet(ie the incels, redpills etc). And on a social level the marriage and birth rates plummet. 'Adapt or die' is that in the west, just like in Japan, it won't take that long anymore before they sell more diapers to seniors than infants. The ties that bind us are coming apart at the seams. A society with millions of lonely people fading into irrelevance.

 

[McElroy]

What you're referring to is evolutionary psychology, which is pseudo-science. It starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence supporting it, which is the opposite of the scientific method. The actual psychology of sex, dating and relationships is far more complicated.

I'll offer you a more correct alternative. Evolutionary psychology is not pseudoscience, but many if not most of the conclusions that laymen derive from its findings are. Exacerbations fly high because explaining a complicated matter that has huge variance between individuals is difficult.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'll offer you a more correct alternative. Evolutionary psychology is not pseudoscience, but many if not most of the conclusions that laymen derive from its findings are. Exacerbations fly high because explaining a complicated matter that has huge variance between individuals is difficult.

Oh, it must be fun being involved in real evopysch, and having to say "No, not like that, the genuine stuff" to everyone all the time.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[stroopwafel]

These three sentences really tie back to my previous post and the total lack of introspection. Not only is it a really bad take on women (because JESUS have you ever heard women talk about men in a private setting? Do you even have an inkling of understanding of women's attraction, lust and desire?). Not only is it an incredibly demeaning and pessimistic take on men (do you honestly think that the only thing a man can provide in a relationship is stable income?). It is most of all incredibly narrow minded to think that something as complex as human mating and relationship habits can be explained by some pseudo-science evo psych about men being horny and women wanting stability and comfort.

There's tons of research being conducted on why we are having less sex in general as a society (though older people seem to have more sex) and why young adults are committing to relationships later in life. None of that research is coming back with "women don't fuck men who don't pay out". It is coming out with a lot of complex interactions to all facets of society, from troubles finding jobs and living with parents longer to increased use of internet and less social contacts person to person. It is finding that increasing social stratification might contribute and that the easy access to porn and thus self-gratification might make the intricate dating ritual and reading of social cues less appealing. It is finding that people who wouldn't have even been merited attention before (like people with mental illness, neuropsychiatric disorders and similar) have a voice now and express the loneliness they always felt but no one bothered to listen to.

I can't even begin to describe how exhausting it is to read stuff like what you and gorfias write because the one thought that keeps running through my head is "have you even talked to women?". Your understanding of women is like a parody on Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars with absolutely no punchline. It is such a shallow, prejudiced notion of how essentially different from men women are that I struggle to find a word for it that isn't a variation on sexism. And never once in these discussions does it ever seem to occur to you that the reason that some men are repeatedly rejected by women might not be that women are unreasonable gold diggers, but that those men are doing something that puts women off. Never is the women's perspective brought up in anything but a cursory, superficial way like "I get that she doesn't want to fuck a 5/10" or "It is obvious that she expects economic perks". Never is the sheer fucking entitlement in the underlying premise addressed. The entitlement that men just expect that some woman somewhere wants to ride their dick and that it is somehow terribly unfair that they actually have to master a social skillset for this to be true. Never is it addressed that millions of women suffer the same problems, that they spend years trying to find a man who wants to sleep with them or date them.

It is such a stupid discussion because there's a mountain of research out there and loads of expert groups closely studying these changes in our sexuality and mating habits. Yet the discussion is never there, never about the sociological reasons why things have changed and how we should adapt to them. No, it is like talking to my friends in high school all over again, this constant, endless lament about how "nice guys never get a chance" or "women just want chads", only the guys aren't 15 years old anymore but grown ass men who seem perpetually stuck in a high schoolers mindset.

Go outside (after the pandemic is done), get to know some women, talk relationships with them and have your mind blown. The Manosphere is actively hostile to human intellect and deserves nothing but contempt and a quick fiery death on the ash heap of stupid ideologies.

What does it matter what people say? Words don't cost anything. It's when actual investment needs to be made when you can determine what they really think instead of some socially desirable non-sequitur. Women don't want to go out with atleast 80% of men on dating sites while most men are desperate for any kind of contact on there. Women get too much (unwanted) attention and men too little. Just simple observations that shows the world of difference. Just look at Reddit where you have threads all the time where men are still riding the high b/c some woman complimented them on their shoes 5 years ago. Women have value just by being a woman but men have to prove themselves among other men. The standard men have for women is completely different. Men have eight times the sex hormones but a fraction of the attention and opportunities women have. Being a man, frankly, sucks.

 

[gorfias]

What does it matter what people say? Words don't cost anything. It's when actual investment needs to be made when you can determine what they really think instead of some socially desirable non-sequitur. Women don't want to go out with atleast 80% of men on dating sites while most men are desperate for any kind of contact on there. Women get too much (unwanted) attention and men too little. Just simple observations that shows the world of difference. Just look at Reddit where you have threads all the time where men are still riding the high b/c some woman complimented them on their shoes 5 years ago. Women have value just by being a woman but men have to prove themselves among other men. The standard men have for women is completely different. Men have eight times the sex hormones but a fraction of the attention and opportunities women have. Being a man, frankly, sucks.

@Gethsemani did make one good point early on: men regardless of their own age are picky in that they find women mostly attractive during that woman's "fertility window". They will be more selective when thinking about dating a woman by her mid-30s.

I looked up the most negative things I could find on the Internet about Warren Farrell and it aint much. At worst, he made a statement among his many books that he should reconsider. For this one statement, Feminists think they can label him a "rape apologist" and not have to consider anything else written by him for him many, many other books. But your points stroopwafel are, I think true, of men and women particularly in that mid-teen to late 20ish window.

 

[Buyetyen]

What does it matter what people say? Words don't cost anything.

Is that why you keep your running your mouth about shit you don't understand?

Women don't want to go out with atleast 80% of men on dating sites while most men are desperate for any kind of contact on there.

And rather than asking why, you use stereotypes to assume you already know.

Being a man, frankly, sucks.

I remember when I was a teenager and thought like this. Then I grew the fuck up.

EDIT:

Wanted to add:

Never is it addressed that millions of women suffer the same problems, that they spend years trying to find a man who wants to sleep with them or date them.

I know several women who are very physically attractive, but don't date much because the majority of dudes who approach them are goobers. And I'm not talking looks. I mean I have literally been having conversations with these women like a normal person when some dipshit wanders up and says something like, "You look like you could use someone to talk to." As if I'm not even there. This has happened more than once. In theory, being approached is nice. Not so much when you're getting approached by a bunch of doorknobs with no social grace.

Charms, like anything, can be learned. That's why we call them social skills. Most men choose not to learn on the erroneous assumption you either got it or you don't. And having once been there as a younger man, I get the appeal of a fatalist outlook on this. I'm no Adonis. I'm not ripped and probably never will be because I find working out horribly boring. There's a certain allure to the notion that a lack of luck in love is not my fault.

I was going through a dry spell before the pandemic, but that was solely on me. I spent 2019 focusing on my career and my skills. I didn't go out to meet people, I didn't use any dating sites or apps, I just wasn't actively doing things that would be conducive to getting a date. A lot of men do the same thing, but assume the problem is everybody else. You can't expect a relationship if you don't go out there and actually try. Most MRAs in my experience don't try. They resign themselves. There's an emotional payoff from it, but it's not a particularly healthy one.

So we have these disaffected, unhappy men doing absolutely nothing to take responsibility for the parts of their lives they do control. They don't go out, they don't flirt, they don't make friends with women, they don't do anything that would foster the beginning of a relationship. And the Manosphere tells them that's not the problem; women are the problem because they're man-hating feminists or sex gatekeepers or something else that otherwise pins the blame for a man's unhappiness squarely on women.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[stroopwafel]

@Gethsemani did make one good point early on: men regardless of their own age are picky in that they find women mostly attractive during that woman's "fertility window". They will be more selective when thinking about dating a woman by her mid-30s.

Physical attraction wouldn't exist if it wasn't for procreation(it's the evolutionary purpose of attraction after all) so ofcourse it's logical men are predominantly attracted to women in their fertile years. Men are fertile for much longer so that's probably also the reason they are still attracted to younger women.

 

[Buyetyen]

When Jordan Peterson was advocating for forcing women to marry lonely men (yeah, yeah he backpedalled when confronted yadda yadda), that resonated with his followers and the Manosphere because that's literally how little value you think women have.

Speaking of Peterson, illustrative of your point was a flood over the last couple of years of guys relating stories of how they persuaded their girlfriends to attend one of Peterson's lectures only to have the girl break up with them the next day. And without exception, these guys had no clue why these women would be turned off by a guy talking about male supremacy, anti-feminism, Biblical masculinity and lobster fucking.

Physical attraction wouldn't exist if it wasn't for procreation(it's the evolutionary purpose of attraction after all) so ofcourse it's logical men are predominantly attracted to women in their fertile years. Men are fertile for much longer so that's probably also the reason they are still attracted to younger women.

Ah, more evopsych bullshit. A conclusion looking for supporting evidence with absolutely no intention of trying to falsify your own hypothesis to see if it stands up.

 

[gorfias]

Physical attraction wouldn't exist if it wasn't for procreation(it's the evolutionary purpose of attraction after all) so ofcourse it's logical men are predominantly attracted to women in their fertile years. Men are fertile for much longer so that's probably also the reason they are still attracted to younger women.

Agreed, but when we're talking about the 80/20 rule, men are also very selective for the reasons you state. Older women can face the same aggravations younger men face as men mid 30 and over have their own sort of 80/20 rule.

A problem is for those age appropriate 20-30 year old people, both men and women, is I think society needs them to make a decision and partner up. As much fun as that may be for young women, it is a two edged sword as well. Some women marry too soon, have kids and regret it. Some women never want marriage and kids and are happy with that decision in their later years. But for a woman that takes too long, never marries, never has kids and regrets it in later life, her options probably become as frustrating as that average looking underempolyed 20 something dude. And there are no do overs.

So, like, you didn't really read my post did you? This is exactly the kind of stereotypical, prejudiced and ignorant bullshit I talked about. No reflection about what life must be like as a woman, just some fucked up assumption that women have intrinsic value and that there's no peer pressure or competition among women. Have you watched Gossip Girl? Glee? Buffy the Vampire Slayer? OC? One Tree Hill? Any TV series in the last two decades that sort of featured young women interacting with young women on a regular basis? Did it ever occur to you that maybe women's peer groups have similar peer pressure and competitive dynamics as male peer groups, just with a different focus and other visible characteristics?

Let me be utterly blunt: My value as a woman is not intrinsic. To men it is entirely reliant on my appearance and my willingness to satisfy their dick. To women it is judged based on social pressures like my ability to conform to group expectations and my ability to exhibit the status symbols of the group. I'm sick of the gall that guys like you have, in that you claim that my value is somehow intrinsic but if I dare to actually exercise that right, to set boundaries and exhibit a personality that men might not like, then I'm a *****, slut, Karen or whatever slur is in vogue. Because what you perceive as intrinsic value is nothing of the sort. It is a value that you arbitrarily ascribe to me because you imagine that It'd be nice to stick your dick in me.

At the core of that problem of men ascribing arbitrary value to women is the basic assumption that women are essentially sex dispensers that men should be allowed to tap for some sweet pootang. And that when women refuse to be sex dispensers some men lose their shit because they are utterly unable to interact with women in a normal fashion and in such a way as to convince the woman that she'd enjoy fucking the guy too. You expect to bumble in, be an asshat (in the words of my wife "Even if these guys got on a date, their obvious contempt for women would ensure there'd be no second") and for the woman to, shit I don't know, take pity on you/see that your heart is in the right place/do her civic duty and let you dip it a little? When Jordan Peterson was advocating for forcing women to marry lonely men (yeah, yeah he backpedalled when confronted yadda yadda), that resonated with his followers and the Manosphere because that's literally how little value you think women have. We are not individuals with our own right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. No, we are your fucktoys and domestic servants and you're pissy because we've been given the freedom to reject that fucked up thinking. You call that value because the ability to put your dick in someone regularly has a value to you. But it has no value to whoever you are forcing your dick into. It is a supremely egocentric way of thinking of "value" when talking about other humans.

In terms of reproduction, eggs have high value, sperm is cheap. At least among humans. This is part of why men are disposable. Fine for them to make up 95% combat deaths, work place deaths, die ever younger as a gender longevity gap grows. Again Farrell: fertile women are genetic celebrities. After the "Bell Curve" came out, Pat Buchanan wrote that IQ is only part of the power equation. For every 50 year old CEO out there getting past the rope and into an exclusive club there is already a 20 year old woman in an slinky black dress.