[eastbound]

The gender gap in compassion is always surprising. There is never “educate boys to fix society”. The argument is as follows: “But girls get raped, so we need to save them” “Who rapes girls?” “Boys” “What opportunities do they have?” “Drugs, army, and the street” “Wouldn’t they too deserve to be given care, notably the care that was too given to girls?” “No, [various reasons]” “But don’t you care that girls get raped by boys?” “Yes” “So what do you do?” “Take care of the girls”.

[mothballed]

Males want to attract females and get married. They way they can do this is by achieving money/power. If education is profitable and possible, then executing it takes care of itself. If it's not possible, well it was a moot cause anyway unless some outsider will come in and help.

Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets ... so bootstrapping is a little harder because they have intrinsic value they can fall back on (someone is going to get angry at me for saying that, but it's just the way it is). If I can just marry a rich man I might be okay with that, or whoever makes the decisions for me might be okay with that. You have to get someone to come in and force enough of them to feel like they're a failure for not getting an education and then eventually they'll socially reinforce it themselves without further outside influence.

I believe this is why it's much higher yield for the enlightened outsider to come in and declare their moral and intellectual superiority and tell the females they are losers (or less happy, or less independent, whatever the politically correct terminology is used nowadays) for not getting an education, and get (read: bribe) their families to put them into it.

[sapphicsnail]

> Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets ...

Women can pretty much do anything men can do. How is a wealthy, financially successful woman less valuable than a man?

[deadeye]

I'll play this out...

Every human is equally valuable in the moral sense.

But value is subjective when we are talking about relationships and we can only generalize about this value.

High income women are more valuable to low income men.

High income men already have money. They value other attributes.

And this is the paradox successful women can face. Their success doesn’t attract the mates they desire, quite the opposite. And worse, they were never told that. They were told the opposite.

[sapphicsnail]

I've been told men are intimidated by successful women my whole life. Women aren't being tricked into having careers.

The whole framing of "women are only valuable for their personal assets" only makes sense from the perspective of a certain kind of man. My whole point is that this is entirely subjective. People talk about it like it's the natural state of things but it's a cultural belief.

[alexashka]

> My whole point is that this is entirely subjective

No.

This 'entirely subjective' perspective only makes sense from a certain kind of human. I call them below 130 IQ human personally.

[deadeye]

Successful men are not intimidated by successful women, they just don't desire them (for their success)...in general.

The intimidation comes into play when men are put at an income disadvantage. Women also don't find men who make less than them desirable (in general). So it's a double wammy.

A single mutli-millionaire guy is not going to be impressed by a woman who works 50 hrs a week and makes $400k.

He would rather someone available to take care of his needs while he can take care of the financial needs.

This is the opposite of what successful females want.

[alexashka]

> A single mutli-millionaire guy is not going to be impressed by a woman who works 50 hrs a week and makes $400k

Sure he's impressed.

People date/marry people from their caste/social circle. You want your partner to fit smoothly into your existing life which means having a similar upbringing and career trajectory.

The work vs take care of needs is a false dichotomy. The person that'll 'take care of your needs' is the person you are on the same page with - assuming you're looking for a long term partnership, rather than the equivalent of a prostitute.

[programjames]

Where exactly was that stated or implied?

[sapphicsnail]

How do you interpret,

"Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets ..."

[programjames]

As in, women are valued just for having a womb. Men are not valued just for having a penis, or for having bigger muscles, or for being taller, unless they will use those assets on their person to go do something for someone else.

I do not interpret it, as you seem to, to mean, "the only valuable thing about women are their bodies." I do not see how you could come to such an interpretation, unless you are pattern matching the redpill memes you see in the other user's comment and extending that to, "(s)he must believe this, if there is anything remotely related to redpill in the comment".

[lotsofpulp]

Wild comment.

> If I can just marry a rich man I might be okay with that, or whoever makes the decisions for me might be okay with that

Fyi, “just marry” incorporates a lot of things would disqualify the use of the term “just”. The least of which is pregnancy and the risks thereof, especially in these poorer societies without healthcare.

[programjames]

You say this as if you are providing new information. I suspect >99% of the Hacker News population, including the commenter above you, already knows this.

[dwaltrip]

Right, no man has ever attracted a woman by displaying pro-social attributes.

> Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets.

2018 called and they want their red pill back.

——

When’s your book coming out? I’m dying to learn more about “the way it is”.

——

P.S. I say this with full sincerity: If you are open to advice, try reading “Models: Attract Women Through Honest”. It will expand your mind.

It was recommended to me by a friend who managed to un-redpill himself.

[lazyasciiart]

What? You think it is unfair that when boys go to school and girls don't, people target girls for help attending school? Twisted.