I finally figured out why women are valued higher.

[RangerMIke]

Expectations for women is much lower than men. They are honored and respected for normal male achievement. There is actually a pretty good movie out right now about the Tennis match between Billy Jean King and Bobbie Riggs. King is still considered some kind of heroine, when she was at the top of her game, for beating 55 year old WWII vet who had not won a majors in 25 years... and had not played a pro match against male competition in the 14 years previous to this so called "Battle of the Sexes".

Just try and find the full version of that tennis match... I can't find it posted online, but my uncle has a old tape that was converted from 8 mm film he recorded at the match in the Astrodome. If you can find a copy of that full match, and know ANYTHING about Tennis, it is pretty obvious Riggs threw that match. The number of unforced errors was historic. Later we would learn that Riggs might have intentionally threw the match to get rid of gambling debt with the mob.

But anyway THAT is supposed to be an example of how women are just as good as men. If society wants to pretend gender is nothign but a construct... then all I can do is smile, just like you smile at a child that believes in Santa.

Anyway.... women are valued because in reproduction... you know the thing that keeps the human race from extinction... they are NOT expendable... men are. We are biologically expendable. If there are 100 human beings ages 18 to 28. In one case there is 1 dude and 99 chicks, in 3 generations, you would have THOUSANDS of people. In the other case you have 99 dudes and 1 chick. you might have a few dozen, this assumes the chick doesn't die in child birth.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Expectations for women is much lower than men. They are honored and respected for normal male achievement. There is actually a pretty good movie out right now about the Tennis match between Billy Jean King and Bobbie Riggs. King is still considered some kind of heroine, when she was at the top of her game, for beating 55 year old WWII vet who had not won a majors in 25 years... and had not played a pro match against male competition in the 14 years previous to this so called "Battle of the Sexes".

Just try and find the full version of that tennis match... I can't find it posted online, but my uncle has a old tape that was converted from 8 mm film he recorded at the match in the Astrodome. If you can find a copy of that full match, and know ANYTHING about Tennis, it is pretty obvious Riggs threw that match. The number of unforced errors was historic. Later we would learn that Riggs might have intentionally threw the match to get rid of gambling debt with the mob.

But anyway THAT is supposed to be an example of how women are just as good as men. If society wants to pretend gender is nothign but a construct... then all I can do is smile, just like you smile at a child that believes in Santa.

Anyway.... women are valued because in reproduction... you know the thing that keeps the human race from extinction... they are NOT expendable... men are. We are biologically expendable. If there are 100 human beings ages 18 to 28. In one case there is 1 dude and 99 chicks, in 3 generations, you would have THOUSANDS of people. In the other case you have 99 dudes and 1 chick. you might have a few dozen, this assumes the chick doesn't die in child birth.

I agree with everything except males being expendable. Society wouldn't function with just one male and a bunch of females.

 

[RangerMIke]

I agree with everything except males being expendable. Society wouldn't function with just one male and a bunch of females.

Really... you really don't see this? One man can impregnate hundreds of women a year. One woman can have ONE child a year. I did not say men were not important... I said men are expendable. If your purpose is to preservation of the human species, as long as you have a few men... you will be fine. In one generation you will have enough men to get society on track. If you have only a handful of chicks... well, building the human race back up will be slow.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Really... you really don't see this? One man can impregnate hundreds of women a year. One woman can have ONE child a year. I did not say men were not important... I said men are expendable. If your purpose is to preservation of the human species, as long as you have a few men... you will be fine. In one generation you will have enough men to get society on track. If you have only a handful of chicks... well, building the human race back up will be slow.

But not much would get done while we're waiting for the male population to build back up.

Sorry, but I'm not going to view myself as dispensible.

In primitive societies, female infanticide was regularly practiced because they needed men to provide and defend the tribe. Too many females was just dead weight.

 

[SOCOWBOY]

But not much would get done while we're waiting for the male population to build back up.

Sorry, but I'm not going to view myself as dispensible.

In primitive societies, female infanticide was regularly practiced because they needed men to provide and defend the tribe. Too many females was just dead weight.

men are viewed as dispensable. It doesn't mean that we are. We are viewed that way.

You seem intelligent, how come you can't grasp basic concepts? because of emotion son.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

It has nothing to do with intrinsic value. As has been discussed, men tend to be more capable in most ways. Men are definitely physically stronger. Why are men physically stronger? We'll get to that in a second. The best qualities we've come up with for women's value are multitasking, the ability to form emotional connections, and emotional intelligence. Is any of that actually true? Who knows. But that's not what matters to their value.

Their value lies in their eggs. Do eggs have higher intrinsic value than sperm? No. They have the same. They are each capable of producing 50% of a new person. The value of eggs lies in their rarity. A female produces roughly 350 eggs in her lifetime. She can only get pregnant once every 9 months, or 1.33333 times per year. A man can ejaculate let's just say 7 times per day, so he could produce about 2,556 babies per year.

This means that eggs are 2,556/1.3333 = appr. 1,917 times more valuable than sperm.

Meanwhile, in the year 2049, conscripted man goes to the Incubatory to 'donate' sperm. It is matched with a harvested egg. Once the baby has become a toddler, it enters a kinder-garden fraternity, and then a school fraternity, and so on until graduation. 'Parents' of off-springs follow the lives of their children daily on social media.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

If men were able to create women through a 3-D printer and program them to fvck, suck, and obey, then the demand for women would decrease and the supply of women would increase, thus creating less value for women.

Women are only as valuable as the demand the market commands of them. Unfortunately, we have this little hormone called testosterone which regulates our sex drive, which eclipses women's testosterone by 14 times. So under this condition, incited by our superfluous testosterone, the demand for women by men will always be high, thus giving women greater value (tit for tit) in the sexual marketplace. Now you could always castrate your testosterone, but any man who has lived with low testosterone for any period of time knows that's not a life worth living.

This is just the way of consumption and masturbation [the ultimate form where you consume yourself]. With this mentality, you'll see sex robots flooding the market in fifty years, and all men's sexual 'needs' shall be fulfilled. Except there is something wrong with this picture. It is not a fulfilling life - it lacks freedom, self-determination, dignity..... and love.

Sex is not a need but a desire [a desire for a person], and a desire can be controlled. One can still have high testosterone without sex - the libido can be sublimated into other passionate activities. There are excellent models of manhood that transcend the thirsty salivating seducer stalking his next little sordid quantum of pleasure.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

Really... you really don't see this? One man can impregnate hundreds of women a year. One woman can have ONE child a year. I did not say men were not important... I said men are expendable. If your purpose is to preservation of the human species, as long as you have a few men... you will be fine. In one generation you will have enough men to get society on track. If you have only a handful of chicks... well, building the human race back up will be slow.

And by this logic, if women were in control of the Reproductive Machinery, then at the embryonic stage, a culling would occur to insure 90% of fetuses were female.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

men are viewed as dispensable. It doesn't mean that we are. We are viewed that way.

You seem intelligent, how come you can't grasp basic concepts? because of emotion son.

What basic concepts are these?

 

[user43770]

This dude has to be a plant on here, or a shill of some sort. This guys doing autistic math problems with sperms an eggs. Like wtf dude. Do you really need to find "intrinsic" value on the other half of our fking species? ugh this is the type of threads I wish were printed on paper, just so I could more easily wipe my ass with them.

 

[Asasione]

And by this logic, if women were in control of the Reproductive Machinery, then at the embryonic stage, a culling would occur to insure 90% of fetuses were female.

So how would women be in control of the reproductive machinery in his example scenarios? Seems you've become obsessed with feminists that you seem to think most women actually have the strength to lead people into such an outcome. Women who can engineer such a scenario are few and far between.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

So how would women be in control of the reproductive machinery in his example scenarios? Seems you've become obsessed with feminists that you seem to think most women actually have the strength to lead people into such an outcome. Women who can engineer such a scenario are few and far between.

When one logic over-rules all else, then an extreme development of it is not unthinkable. Society is basically a 'ship of fools'. Of course, there would have to be the continued extrapolation of an egalitarian/ feminist logic at the expense of the continued erosion of our culture. This would involve a time-lag of say a generation or two. Within this time period, you might see actual physical interaction [sex] between the genders heavily frowned upon [unhygienic + some form of Puritanism]. With children no longer raised in the family unit, an equal number of men to women would be superfluous. This would not require the eradication of existing men - there would just be a transitional phase where most of the laboratory produced fetuses would be female [all else being equal, eggs are the predominant factor].
: )

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Drawing from this... This means that the "value" of a female is not determined by what she does, but what she is. She kind of just got lucky to be born female. She will always find someone who would house, clothe, and feed her. She will never have to do truly hard work, for she is not capable of it.

Her "value" is ascribed, not achieved. She was born with it. This is true in 98% of cases.

Now, if we're trying to look past their sex/reproduction to find some value, what could it be? Certainly not their multitasking ability.

Perhaps they could be fun to hang out with or make good companions regardless of their gender? But fact is.... They don't. Maybe 1 out of 1000.

 

[Julian]

Drawing from this... This means that the "value" of a female is not determined by what she does, but what she is. She kind of just got lucky to be born female. She will always find someone who would house, clothe, and feed her. She will never have to do truly hard work, for she is not capable of it.

Her "value" is ascribed, not achieved. She was born with it. This is true in 98% of cases.

Now, if we're trying to look past their sex/reproduction to find some value, what could it be? Certainly not their multitasking ability.

Perhaps they could be fun to hang out with or make good companions regardless of their gender? But fact is.... They don't. Maybe 1 out of 1000.

Maybe ur homosexual ever thoight of that

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Maybe ur homosexual ever thoight of that

No, not really.

But I have considered that I'm domestically violent.

 

[sosousage]

Drawing from this... This means that the "value" of a female is not determined by what she does, but what she is. She kind of just got lucky to be born female. She will always find someone who would house, clothe, and feed her. She will never have to do truly hard work, for she is not capable of it.

Her "value" is ascribed, not achieved. She was born with it. This is true in 98% of cases.

Now, if we're trying to look past their sex/reproduction to find some value, what could it be? Certainly not their multitasking ability.

Perhaps they could be fun to hang out with or make good companions regardless of their gender? But fact is.... They don't. Maybe 1 out of 1000.

so? if shes born fat or ugly theres no use for her. Assuming shes slim and hasnt deformed face, Her SMV peak is at 18-24 or something like that and then it gets lower every year (usually).

They also dont have that testosterone drive that gets men to do something with their lives other than clubbing or watching tv

 

[RichardTheFrog]

so? if shes born fat or ugly theres no use for her. Assuming shes slim and hasnt deformed face, Her SMV peak is at 18-24 or something like that and then it gets lower every year (usually).

They also dont have that testosterone drive that gets men to do something with their lives other than clubbing or watching tv

Fat people are not born fat. They become that way through years of laziness, poor diet, and overeating.

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't necessary for a girl to "go to the gym" to get that nice body. All she has to do is not eat McDonald's or be a complete sedentary slob.

 

[sosousage]

Fat people are not born fat. They become that way through years of laziness and poor diet.

some are born heavier than other, some have predispositions to be fat (acquired genetically). i love my genetics because no matter how much i eat i still wont gain weight (unless i really tryhard on gym) so nothing to complain about, but there are people that do a lot of activities and are still fat and even if they lose it for a moment, couple months without sport will make them fat again due to their genetics.


and yes, women dont need to do gym, dont need to have car or a decent job/education, or anything, they just have to be for most men, but thats because men are so hungry for sex that they agree with anything

 

[RichardTheFrog]

some are born heavier than other, some have predispositions to be fat (acquired genetically). i love my genetics because no matter how much i eat i still wont gain weight (unless i really tryhard on gym) so nothing to complain about, but there are people that do a lot of activities and are still fat and even if they lose it for a moment, couple months without sport will make them fat again due to their genetics.

That's true. Which is why I don't go to the gym.

I might be able to get real buff, but as soon as I stop exercising daily, it will go away in 2 weeks.

And I don't need large muscles to make money.

 

[sosousage]

That's true. Which is why I don't go to the gym.

I might be able to get real buff, but as soon as I stop exercising daily, it will go away in 2 weeks.

And I don't need large muscles to make money.

no you dont need but gym gives extremaly big benefit for man's MIND and body as well.