Science Are Women Worthless After the Age 20?


The ways that men are valued compared to women signal differential worth.
Society dictates that men reach their peak attractiveness around the age of 50, while a woman’s peak comes and goes by age 22.
Women's rights issues are essentially human rights issues.
“I am not the woman president of Harvard. I am the president of Harvard."—Drew Gilpin Faust

I identify as human—not as male or as female—but human. A human life has innate value. A human, born in America, is endowed with certain inalienable rights. Unfortunately, things become gendered after that. It is all men who are created equal.

For 12,000 years, the hierarchical distribution of power, privilege, and rights has resolutely favored men while entrenching a system that disrespects, oppresses, and exploits women. The notion that all lives have equal value remains aspirational.

Inequality persists between men and women
In our society, the reasons that people are valued is gendered. Men are most valued for their character, including honesty, morality, power, and professional achievement, whereas women are primarily valued for their physical attractiveness and their capacity to be nurturing and empathic. Men reach their peak attractiveness around the age of 50; a woman’s peak comes and goes by the time she reaches 18-22 years old.

Women comprise half of the U.S. workforce, but they also continue to be the family’s primary caregivers and "homemakers," inclusive of housework, organization, and daily tasks such as paying bills. Men engage in 50% more leisure time than women (Kamp Dush, Yavorsky & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2018). You’d think all this extra work would increase a women’s value, but it is quite the opposite. Due to our lowered social status, as more women enter a male-dominated field, the profession becomes feminized and thus devalued, so pay in that field decreases for both men and women.

Worldwide, women make 77 cents to every dollar earned by men, corresponding to a lifetime of inequality and a substantially greater risk of retiring in poverty. "Women’s work," that is healthcare, domestic, and early education careers, are not only underpaid but are also undervalued, despite their societal importance. Women pay more for products marketed to women and are subject to taxes for menstrual products such as tampons. We face rampant sexual harassment and assault in the workplace and are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence in the home. Women are more likely to face chronic hunger, become victims of human trafficking, and, due to industries' reliance on a male standard, are more likely to be injured in automobile crashes and experience pharmacological side effects. The Equal Rights Amendment has still not crossed the finish line.

Medical care for men is all-inclusive, regardless of where their condition is located in their body. Women, on the other hand, must find someone who caters to "women’s issues," and then will likely find their "issue" to be under-researched and psychologized.

Movies and books from a female perspective are maligned as "chick flicks" and "chick lit," implying they are something other than essential dramas or comedies—something smaller and less evolved. Moreover, movie audiences are twice as likely to see male characters on the screen than females, even less if you are watching an action movie (16%) or science fiction (8%) (Bloom, 2020). Even when there is a woman on screen, they will only have a dialogue about 22% of the time (Swanson, 2016), and about half of those conversations will not pass the Bechdel test, where at least two women must talk to one another about something other than a man.

Women are taught that their value comes from being very young, traditionally feminine, and able to bear children. When a protest is organized for equal pay, autonomy, and other basic freedoms, the public is told this is a "women’s march" for "women’s rights"…but women’s rights are human rights, aren’t they?


We all suffer from these oppressive systems of injustice. It is not only women who are impacted by gender norms. Traditional male stereotypes negatively impact men’s physical and mental health, including increased risk for violence, depression, suicide, and substance abuse (Levant & Pryor, 2020). Gender inequality is the most intractable injustice of our age. Although women make up 50.8% of the U.S. population, men make up 73% of Congress. We live in a space where predatory male sexual violence is a slap-on-the-wrist offense but women’s agency and sexual self-determination are considered a threat so great as to justify infantilization, intimidation, discrimination, and government regulation.

Contradictory messages
The truth is, you can’t really know much about me because you know that I'm a woman. Yet so much of how the world responds to women is based on gender. Then, within this gendered construct, there are a thousand contradictory messages that women must negotiate every day.

Women are precious—princesses in need of rescue—but we must shoulder a lifetime of abuse, inequity, and gaslighting. We are evaluated in terms of our bodies—our sexuality—yet no matter what we wear, we are in danger of "asking for it" and being "slut shamed." We are held to an unachievable standard of beauty—then, devalued for every flaw, every pound, every passing year. We are called shrill and silenced because after all, "things have gotten so much better" and "not all men are that way." Yet, we still are not paid an equal wage and must fight for the most basic right—the right to have a choice over what happens within our own bodies.

I am not male—I am not female. I am human.

Women’s rights are human rights!
 
My grand hope is to find a man who could be the primary homemaker, but I doubt it.
Yeahhhhhhhh....you really don't want that. You think you do but you'll just end up not respecting them in the long run. Deep down women can't truly respect a man as a man if he just sits at home and plays wife.

Edit: I think I just earned my first ignore lads. :semperfidelis:
 
Last edited:
I'd argue the soys aren't the Feminine men, it's that perhaps the Feminine Men were already trooned out by their parents at 10 for liking musicals.
Au contraire. The "housedad" archetype isn't necessarily "effeminate." It's California liberals who want to feel like "mavericks" for having an unconventional relationship.
Tons of overlap with poly-cucks.
 
Au contraire. The "housedad" archetype isn't necessarily "effeminate." It's California liberals who want to feel like "mavericks" for having an unconventional relationship.
Tons of overlap with poly-cucks.

Thats why I don't think the soys are Feminine Men, I believe they are more, self-hating Men. As a result of media influence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coco Coir
Thats why I don't think the soys are Feminine Men, I believe they are more, self-hating Men. As a result of media influence.
Then why did you bring up feminine men?
This all feels like a non-sequitur. Don't make me report you to the fallacy police!
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Apis mellifera
less worthless than men after age 20 tbh
1653375196115.png
 
Thank you for such a kind and informative response, I do appreciate it. It is reassuring to know that it isn't an all or nothing sort of deal, and I could have a professional life outside of motherhood.

I've spent pretty much the last 10+ years straight grinding for the career that I have now, and I am the sort of neurotically ambitious person that goes a bit mad when she's not working maniacally on some crazy project. My work consumes my life and mind, and I know that my mental state suffers when I am not working in my field, which is what concerns me about pausing my career to be a mother. I'd give anything to not have to put my work on pause just to reproduce, but I guess we all have to play the cards that we are dealt. My grand hope is to find a man who could be the primary homemaker, but I doubt it. Maybe in another life I'll be born with testes and penis.
In another life, you probably would have become the head of a convent. There would have been a lot of women squeezing out kids to make up for your shortfall, but nowadays the more educated women are having fewer kids, as kids get in the way of hedonism and careerism. Nature used to force women into becoming incubators by making work as hard as shit, thus forcing them to seek out providers, but men fucked that up by inventing washing machines, refrigerators, and birth control. The feminists were right: men did ruin the world!
 
The feminists were right: men did ruin the world!

In the quest to provide for Women, Men made themselves obsolete, they were too successful. By providing countries, states, laws, military, police, public defendants, security systems, bodyguards, CCTV, Taxis, on call handymans, mail, contact-less food delivery, childcare, dating apps, Womens only Gyms, Prisons, Hotels, etc...
 
Thank you for such a kind and informative response, I do appreciate it. It is reassuring to know that it isn't an all or nothing sort of deal, and I could have a professional life outside of motherhood.

I've spent pretty much the last 10+ years straight grinding for the career that I have now, and I am the sort of neurotically ambitious person that goes a bit mad when she's not working maniacally on some crazy project. My work consumes my life and mind, and I know that my mental state suffers when I am not working in my field, which is what concerns me about pausing my career to be a mother. I'd give anything to not have to put my work on pause just to reproduce, but I guess we all have to play the cards that we are dealt. My grand hope is to find a man who could be the primary homemaker, but I doubt it. Maybe in another life I'll be born with testes and penis.
Why not pull a Marie Curie and get into some kind of power couple thing? Ambitious, independent women have families all the time and throughout all of history alongside powerful, charismatic men. If you're as ambitious as you say you are, then finding a man in such corners of your life shouldn't be that difficult.
 
Thank you for such a kind and informative response, I do appreciate it. It is reassuring to know that it isn't an all or nothing sort of deal, and I could have a professional life outside of motherhood.

I've spent pretty much the last 10+ years straight grinding for the career that I have now, and I am the sort of neurotically ambitious person that goes a bit mad when she's not working maniacally on some crazy project. My work consumes my life and mind, and I know that my mental state suffers when I am not working in my field, which is what concerns me about pausing my career to be a mother. I'd give anything to not have to put my work on pause just to reproduce, but I guess we all have to play the cards that we are dealt. My grand hope is to find a man who could be the primary homemaker, but I doubt it. Maybe in another life I'll be born with testes and penis.

It honestly sounds like you need to plan for somew WFH part time with work flexibility. even if it would come with paycut, sounds like you have enough drive and skill to still be able to do that, the thing is finding employer that will allow you to do, i would suggest becoming irreplacable then getting kids i think you are the type that would be able to do 4 hours if partner helps and if you are irreplacable then employer is going to prefer the 4 hours over nothing.
 
What her article boils down to is that she feels that womens only worth is their attractiveness. The irony is that it’s her brand of feminism that’s driven this. The usefulness of each sex comes down to what they give to the tribe. Men provide and build, women create new tribe members and manage the domestic sphere. Women can compete in many areas, but there are other we can’t (anything physical for example.) by making the stance that there are no differences between men and women you are setting women up to fail. And when you have that scenario and women are forced to compete like that you revert back to their only constant advantage which is what women’s exclusive ability is, which is making men want them. Since that ability peaks in your twenties, she creates the very thing she’s railing against.
I think that society can take only a threshold amount of gender role divergence before it starts having negative effects in the society as a whole. That sucks hugely for smart women, and I don’t want us all chained in the kitchen again, but I honestly think current gender dynamics are disastrous.
 
Yeahhhhhhhh....you really don't want that. You think you do but you'll just end up not respecting them in the long run. Deep down women can't truly respect a man as a man if he just sits at home and plays wife.
The thing is, I do not explicitly care about the sex of my partner, the only reason why I would select a male spouse over a female one is simply because we'd be able to pass both of our genes onto a singular child, which is an appealing attribute of being in a heterosexual relationship. I do not need a "man", so much as I am attracted to femininity and nurturing personalities that complement my own. For obvious reasons, I date mostly women, because nurturing and gentle men are difficult to locate.
In another life, you probably would have become the head of a convent. There would have been a lot of women squeezing out kids to make up for your shortfall, but nowadays the more educated women are having fewer kids, as kids get in the way of hedonism and careerism. Nature used to force women into becoming incubators by making work as hard as shit, thus forcing them to seek out providers, but men fucked that up by inventing washing machines, refrigerators, and birth control. The feminists were right: men did ruin the world!
It is shocking how appealing this idea is to me. It's a shame that faithful, tightly-knit communities revolving around churches and religious schools are slowly going the way of the dodo. The only net good I can think is that homosexuality is no longer a deadly sin, but that's just because I like the look of a pretty lass, everything that followed almost makes me wish gays had just remained underground.
Why not pull a Marie Curie and get into some kind of power couple thing? Ambitious, independent women have families all the time and throughout all of history alongside powerful, charismatic men. If you're as ambitious as you say you are, then finding a man in such corners of your life shouldn't be that difficult.
I hope you're right. My one hurdle is that, like most women in my field, I am rather plain, at least compared to the filmstar beauties. That, and I am suspicious of the moral values of the modern man, it seems that most within my cohort are atheist and corrupted by a culture that is increasingly tolerant of pornography, fetishism, and even prostitution. Obviously, I would never feel comfortable with such a man raising my children. Most women are no better. Regardless of personal opinion on religion, I find the channelling of superstition into positive outlets, community, and the emotional stability that comes from believing some higher power is looking out for you, to be a net good. I would hate for my children to grow up to be atheist.
It honestly sounds like you need to plan for somew WFH part time with work flexibility. even if it would come with paycut, sounds like you have enough drive and skill to still be able to do that, the thing is finding employer that will allow you to do, i would suggest becoming irreplacable then getting kids i think you are the type that would be able to do 4 hours if partner helps and if you are irreplacable then employer is going to prefer the 4 hours over nothing.
A fantastic idea, thank you. It is more the act of my work, rather than the pay, that keeps me sane, due to the mental stimulation.

This has been very helpful, thanks you lot. I've been fretting over this increasingly over the past years as my fertility begins to slip by.
What her article boils down to is that she feels that womens only worth is their attractiveness. The irony is that it’s her brand of feminism that’s driven this. The usefulness of each sex comes down to what they give to the tribe. Men provide and build, women create new tribe members and manage the domestic sphere. Women can compete in many areas, but there are other we can’t (anything physical for example.) by making the stance that there are no differences between men and women you are setting women up to fail. And when you have that scenario and women are forced to compete like that you revert back to their only constant advantage which is what women’s exclusive ability is, which is making men want them. Since that ability peaks in your twenties, she creates the very thing she’s railing against.
I think that society can take only a threshold amount of gender role divergence before it starts having negative effects in the society as a whole. That sucks hugely for smart women, and I don’t want us all chained in the kitchen again, but I honestly think current gender dynamics are disastrous.
You have my agreement there, there are obvious differences between men and women, which make men and women better in different spheres, but let's not pretend that men are without fault in the workplace, working with mostly men is a shitshow of oneupmanship and constant ragging on eachother, fuckall gets done! Men may be superior at building houses and dying in wars, but the menfolk struggle with thinking with anything other than their suicidal need to out-compete people who are meant to be their workmates. You need some softer men and women to keep the peace and facilitate proper communication and compromise. I reckon most of this is just socialisation, but most women I've worked with are also superior at thinking creatively, especially in regards to front-end UI and adverts.
 
@Apis mellifera There's more to sexuality than just looks. It's a function of charisma and desire. You'll find plain women who can outdo model level beauties simply because they have a touch to them which simply signals 'fuck me' to men if you desire it. It doesn't seem entirely natural to you but you can manage it as well.
 
First she(?) doesn't...
I identify as human—not as male or as female—but human.
Then she(?) does...
Women are precious—princesses in need of rescue—but we must shoulder a lifetime of abuse, inequity, and gaslighting. We are evaluated
Though I guess changing one's mind is some sort of female prerogative?
 
Shouldn't it be common wisdom why this is?

Men are primarily attracted to physical attractiveness. Which peaks in Womens youth.

Women are attracted to some variation of physical attractiveness and at least the appearance of stability (Nice job, Nice car, Nice clothes, Confidence, Dependability etc...) Which usually peak in Mens later years.
Women are also more attracted to man that are older than them, and men are attracted to women younger than them.
 
Society dictates that men reach their peak attractiveness around the age of 50, while a woman’s peak comes and goes by age 22.
According to who? Some women might settle down with a "mature" guy that can offer them stability, but if we're talking about pure attraction I can't see them going for Grandpa over a muscular guy their own age, or a couple of years older.

When women say they like older guys they *usually* mean only a couple of years older. The average marriage age gap is only 3 years.
 
Last edited:
According to who? Some women might settle down with a "mature" guy that can offer them stability, but if we're talking about pure attraction I can't see them going for Grandpa over a muscular guy their own age, or a couple of years older.

When women say they like older guys they *usually* mean only a couple of years older. The average marriage age gap is only 3 years.
If you're a post-wall dead egger, an established 50 year old is probably what you're after. I don't think I've ever seen male peak that far out though. 40ish is about it usually, but that probably was something to with the what's considered a socially acceptable age difference, half plus seven. Women hearing the clock ticking and looking for an established man basically. It just used to be lower in age for both sides.
 
If you're a post-wall dead egger, an established 50 year old is probably what you're after. I don't think I've ever seen male peak that far out though. 40ish is about it usually, but that probably was something to with the what's considered a socially acceptable age difference, half plus seven. Women hearing the clock ticking and looking for an established man basically. It just used to be lower in age for both sides.
Interesting that you cite the age of 40, I once read a graph in one of my text books that showed a 40-year old man's attractiveness is roughly the same at a 30-year old woman's. It's true that past age 30 or so men gain an advantage and are perceived as more attractive, but by 50 or so both men and women are both largely sexually irrelevant. I'll try to find it if I can, interesting stuff.
 
Back