Women are More Important Than Men - Because they Are. MEN ARE BETTER THAN WOMEN - BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE
EPIGRAPH
‘Why are women, who have the whole male world at their mercy, not funny?’
– Christopher Hitchens
Sometime during the first week of December 2022, a clip of a female Ukrainian soldier dancing went viral. The clip was posted on the Twitter page dedicated to the nation’s war effort. The clip of her performing a dance that was presumably native to her homeland dance was good to watch: The track running in the background was nice, along with the gunshots that rang somewhere close, adding a curious undertone.
The popularity of the video naturally elicited a lot of comments. With those on the media platform who were for and against the war effort having a lot to say. Much of the negativity was along the lines of: ‘Is this what our tax money has paid for!’. Opinions on Ukraine’s efforts in the war and Western funding towards its cause aside, what caught my mind was the performance itself.
The clip of what appears to be a girl in her early to mid-twenties, in full military gear, performing a dance that was by all means feminine. Whilst watching the clip, it was impossible not to separate the female from the soldier. The delicate young belle stood out from the warrior she was supposed to portray. Her curves, her girlish movements, and her charm were all too apparent despite the attire and the setting: The world of war. One that is in principle opposed to all that is feminine, charming, and beautiful. Which is what made her performance, and her specifically, loveable. Despite knowing absolutely nothing about her.
Women are special creatures.
As a man, one can never grow tired of being fascinated by the female form, beauty, and character. There is something about women that makes men feel (more) alive. That makes us more attuned to the wonders of the world. That makes us want to go out and do things. Attain things. Achieve things. Knowingly or otherwise, all for the sake of winning the attention, interest, and desire of fair lady’s heart.
This might sound too simplistic. Too naive. Too old-fashioned. But therein lies the beauty of it. The poetry that characterizes the dance between male and female. The sensual connection between the masculine and feminine. The sexual polarity between male and female: where the beauty and life-giving energy of feminine makes life on Earth worth living.
The point of this essay is that women are special just as they are: biological females. For all that is said in the dominant organs of culture about the need for gender equality: On why women should strive to work, achieve and attain the things that men have, and continue to do in the world of work; females as sex are more important than men. But they are not better than men. This is what the modern movement on gender equality seems to imply with its calls for female empowerment.
The value of womanhood is a function of a girl’s youth, beauty, and sexuality; the factors that make women intrinsically more worthy than men. Thus compelling men to rise to the challenge of proving their (our) worthiness to woo and win them.
THE DYNAMICS OF SEXUAL MARKET VALUE
Recently I searched for and actually managed to find a clip of Kanye West’s (Ye) performance at the 2006 Brit awards in London. I recall watching the show as a teenager and what stood out at the time was the American artist’s ‘Gold digger’: A multi-award winning track featuring Jamie Fox.
It is a good song. But I liked it better when it was performed live by the artist. And Ye, credit to him, actually sang his song, rather than just mouthing the lyrics with audio playing in the background. Which happens a lot. What was captivating about the performance on stage were the dozens of girls (numbering a total of 77) in two-piece swimsuits dipped in gold who danced their way across the winding stage. Capturing, symbolically at least, the essence of a gold digger.
The term gold digger carries with it a sexist undertone since it generally only applies to the female half of our species. Leaving aside the actual case of a woman who pursues a man solely for his wealth, there is the implication when it comes to the attraction equation for women, which pertains to key facets of a relationship like attraction, desire, courtship, and intimacy. All of these, at least as far as women are concerned, tend to be tied to the net worth, income level, trust fund, bank balances, or at least the potential earning power of the men. A view that does not exist without reason.
In the track, the contrast that Ye provides between a gold digger and a broke n***** (a term replaced in the edited version) is pertinent. For one, it takes a man of value to attract a woman. Any woman. A woman of value and integrity or otherwise. However, as your income level rises and with it your social standing, so do the standards you have when it comes to the kind of woman you would like to have in your life. And by extension the number of women you would like to and will be able to pursue; time and other factors notwithstanding.
When it comes to music videos, the practice of employing scantily clad girls who wreathe all over the screen, with the artist singing in the midst, often as a center of attention, was a feature in many tracks from a decade or so ago. Whilst this trend has sort of gone out of fashion, possibly due to the rise of feminism; along with the growing prominence of many young successful female singers. Some of whom have taken it upon themselves to be the artist and the eye candy. Dua Lipa for example.
However, the concept of having a lot of hot babes wearing next to nothing as a music video trope, particularly in R&b and hip hop, says more than the obvious. The predictable accusations of sexism, whilst valid, upon deeper inspection tells us something about the power dynamics that underpin male–female relations.
The first point to consider is that the girls in skimpy clothing are generally young, fit, and hot. There are no old-timers here. And with good reason. The often cited concept in the ‘red pill’, and ‘manosphere’ spaces (I will not bother explaining them here) is that of the ‘sexual market value’, which for women is greatly predicated on their youth, beauty and at a deeper level, fertility is pertinent.
All of these attributes are physiological in nature. Meaning these characteristics (or qualities) are innate to the females of our species. Since the factors that make women desirable to men, and society in general, are biological in nature; women, for the most part, have very little to do other than to look good, pretty, and present themselves in an appealing light. And the attention will come their way. In theory, this truth has held true, arguably since the dawn of time. And will continue to do so in the future. As cleric-turned-economist Thomas Malthus noted:
‘[T]hat the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state’.
(Unless something drastic happens in the meantime. Here the subject of the uglification of women in media, especially in one of the primary male indulgences of video games, and the possible designs of it is proponents, would be something to consider. A subject for another time).
The sexual disparity between the sexes, in terms of innate and perceived value is great. There is a reason why in relationships, at least at the start, men are expected to do much if not all of the work. From approaching a girl, starting up a conversation, making her feel comfortable, establishing common ground, and then working to move things forward. Girls on the other hand can afford to simply look pretty and wait for things to happen… to them.
Intimacy in human beings is a multifaceted process, that varies from person to person and is greatly determined by culture. Hereto Men are expected to be the leaders. From initiating contact, breaking the touch barrier, showcasing romantic or sexual interest without being creepy or needy, and testing the ground when it comes to taking things to the next level. Suggesting the prospect of a future (or immediate) meetup. And then actually getting down to it, when the timing and context are right.
The process of sexual bonding: from first contact to climax is predicated primarily on the actions of men. Women for the most part are happy being the recipients of male sexual initiative, with their consent being the important input. Given the dynamics of sexual intimacy, irrespective of culture, it is not out of line to characterize women as sexually passive creatures.
For even in a scenario where a girl is throwing herself at a man, it is still incumbent upon the guy to make it happen. Men have sex with women. Women don’t have sex with men. Unless they have been incentivized in other ways. This is probably why the use of pornography is widespread among men. For it artificially portrays women as not only having very high libidos, almost comparable to that of men, but it presents female sexuality in a more active light.
In the pornographic industry, girls are showcased with the greater sexual agency than what is discernable in the real world. In the fantasy world of adult content, women are more likely to initiate sex. Be experimental in terms of positions and types of partners. Be willing to please the men sexually. And are also portrayed as more available, pliant, and paradoxically more feminine than the females one is likely to encounter in the real world. Particularly those in the highly feminized Anglo-American world: ‘Feminized’ in the sense of featuring lower sexual polarity between the sexes, more feminism, and along with noticeably less masculinity on part of men.
The appeal of porn is significant, particularly among men who have trouble meeting and making it happen with women in the real world. Where sex is not in the air. Actually, sex is a rather repressed force even in the sexually liberated West. Notable here is the decline of sex among men in their prime years compared to a decade or so ago. Feminism is a major culprit in this regard. But so are the effects of traditional religions: with their undue emphasis on chastity and virginity.
Unless you are talking about strip clubs, playboy mansions, and the raunch culture as a whole. Which technically falls into a fantasy world born of men’s sexual imagination, made viable via the marketplace. Which are unattainable realities for most men: where girls are always available and willing to ‘go’n head get down’.
When it comes to intimacy between males and females, we men have to do much of the work. Which is why humor is such an important component in interactions. Christopher Hitchens’s comments on women and their apparent lack of humor, implying that being funny is a requisite for men in the desirability scales; whereas for women, it matters little, since we as men desire women just as they are (1). What makes the females of our species desirable is predicated on what she is. For men, it is based on who we are.
For men, value must be attained. A man’s social worth is a function of his accomplishments and to a lesser extent, his capacity to achieve. His ability to make money, earn the respect of his peers, command the attention of the public and the love of women is predicated on his ability to bring about or produce something of value. This does not mean any of his innate qualities such as looks, height, and intelligence are insignificant. Rather what matters is what he does with them in the grand scheme of things.
Being tall would count for nothing if he is not in shape. Being smart would mean little if that knowledge is not deployed towards productive ends. Being good-looking, whilst a factor in the sexual market value for men is nothing compared to the value that is attached to the beauty of women. In fact, beauty as a descriptive term is only applicable to women. You cannot call a man ‘beautiful’. With good reason.
It matters little if the good-looking guy in question has little else going for him. As women are not going to come flocking toward him on the basis of his looks. Quite the opposite as far as the females of our species are concerned. As men primarily pursue women for their looks, which is correlated with youth.
Since beauty is a measure of value in women, which is primarily time-related and genetic, and to some extent (and controversially) ethnic, but greatly determined by personal ethic: diet, fitness, lifestyle, and mindset. A girl who is an ‘8’ in the looks department but who chooses to take care of herself, and knows her makeup routine will look a solid ‘9’ or possibly higher.
A ‘9+’ with natural beauty, but who chooses to neglect her gifts (eat, drink and sleep too much) and worse, who chooses to become a purple-haired feminist, will go down the looks scales very quickly.
When it comes to men what matters as far as the genetic heritage is concerned is what we do with our inherited attributes. On how we nurture, prune, and then apply them in our lives: and in time come to specialize in a given area of expertise. One that is recognized by society for its economic, aesthetic, cultural, social, or political value. One that involves learning, growth, and improvement. Aimed towards professionalization, striving towards the ideal of perfection.
THE DARWINIAN LOGIC OF (LOVE) LIFE
The great men of our time: from Elon Musk to Lionel Messi are individuals who have not only excelled in their given area of expertise but have entered a stage of excellence that basically dwarfs the works of their peers, who themselves are top performers in the given field of expertise.
Consider the monumental success of FC Barcelona in their most dominant decade in club football 2008 – 2018 (7 La Liga, 3 Club World Cup, 3 Champions League titles, and much more). One that was driven by the mesmerizing skills of Xavi and Andrés Iniesta. Two of the greatest midfielders of all time. However their great contributions to the team’s success and with it the rewards in club football, to say nothing of their exploits in world football for Spain (Champions of Euro 2008, 2012; World Cup 2010), were overshadowed by the larger-than-life presence and footballing greatness of the Argentinian, Messi.
If you look at other spheres of life we have the same principle in operation. Marlon Brando and Daniel Day-Lewis are titans of theatrical art, which the rest of the acting world holds up in awe. Tech leaders like Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Larry Ellison are worth tens of billions of dollars. And their success in the tech and business world will no doubt translate into success with women. But this success does not come easy.
Getting ahead in the acting world is a story that involves facing rejection after rejection. No actor is immune to the dreaded ‘No’. Just ask Henry Cavil. Or countless other actors who have fallen off the Hollywood radar. Hence to rise up in this industry, one that comes with great rewards involves overcoming tremendous competition.
This competitive logic is very operative in high-risk high-reward industries like tech, venture capital, and financial trading. Which operate according to a cut-throat logic, known in the business world as ‘tough guy macho cultures’. That as the name implies demands fast adaptation, and high risk-taking, with tremendous payoffs for success.
A notable cinematic example of this business (and life) philosophy is found in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013): A story characterized by hyper materialism, individualism, and hedonism. That scene on the plane where Belfort and co are celebrating his bachelor party captures this sentiment best. Banging a plane-load of hot babes 40, 000 feet in the air, with booze and d***s to rouse the experience further, is capitalism at its voracious best. Imagine the sensation of nailing a hot woman on a private jet, when the aircraft you’re in encounters high turbulence!
Sexual and material excesses aside, the pursuit of growth and wealth points to the deeper factor of survival. The survivability criterion that underpins the business world, as those who have worked in the private sector or who own businesses can attest, is essentially driven by a Darwinian logic of life: Of grow or be outgrown. Innovate or be out-innovated. Adapt or die mentality. That demands that only the best companies, and what underlies them, the best men in a given area of proficiency rise to the top. With those that do naturally becoming the center of attention, accolade, and admiration. In turn being in the best position to sell their products (or themselves), raking in the profits, and with it greater access to females.
The effects of growth through refinement and improvement in the pursuit of excellence that the market system demands, as an aggregate has necessary sociological implications. Coming to drive the progress of society (Presuming it is market driven). Joseph Schumpeter in his monumental work: Capitalism Socialism and Democracy (1942) posited one of the powerful concepts in social science: That of creative destruction. Which he describes as a ‘perennial gale’. One that: ‘incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one’ (2).
The logic of evolve or die takes the form of a worldview that filters down into virtually all major areas of life in capitalistic societies. Notably in relationships (i.e. the market for women). Now, this is not a pleasant thing to say, as it essentially commoditizes all women. However, this point must be viewed in light as one which elevates the females of our species to the position of power. As it makes them the worthy reward that men must earn. Thus Hitchens’s observation that women have (most) men at their mercy.
This is why men compete to become the best in whatever area of life they choose to operate in. For that is the only way to increase our odds with women. The productivity principle is geared towards the ideal of excellence. Which is built on the survivability criterion of evolution. Men must strive to succeed. For we must. For it is only when we do, does the good stuff: money, power, honor, and pleasure or sex (women) become accessible.
The sexual market value for a man like Elon Musk is out of this world. Women will marry him, have a one-night stand with him, enter into a polyamorous relationship with him, or even willingly enter into his harem and be his concubine if he so chooses to have one. Provide that he is willing and able (as he certainly is) to provide for their other needs.
Now, this is not to say that Elon Musk and all other extremely wealthy and powerful (for money brings power) are womanizing cads. But the point remains that when men with wealth have the power to do so if they so wish. And women, I mean a lot of women, presumably even the goody goody ones who are waiting for their would-be husband to sweep them off their feet, and deflower them on their marriage bed, will be down for a hot romp or two with a billionaire.
There is a reason why actor Leonardo Dicaprio, who is 48, doesn’t date women, as the tabloids report, who are older than 25. I mean one can certainly think of reasons: the younger the girl the hotter, the healthier, and if it has to be said: the less ‘used-up’ she is.
Needless to say, the average 48 old Joe with a mid-tier income (around $ 31, 000 a year) is going to have a hard time attracting a hot 25-year-old, particularly to commit to a long-term (ish) relationship. Whilst higher income levels do correspond to greater success in the dating market, only the real players (i.e. those who have a lot of money, status, and suave to go with it) would be able to bring in the ladies.
This is the logic of the sexual marketplace. Women pursue men who have a higher social status which is a function of their market value. Di Caprio is a successful actor because his movies do really well at the box office, and hence is able to demand a high paycheck, and with it social recognition.
Men pursue women who are younger and more attractive. This is why beauty pageants, at least historically, tend to feature an age limit (18 – 24) and preclude women who have been married or have given birth. A reason why girls in their late teens and early twenties catch the eye of men of whatever age, rather than those who are nearer to menopause.
A related point, but somewhat on the darker side to this equation on dating and mating preferences, but nonetheless a valid one, as to why men prefer younger women: Is that girls have a higher chance of having their hymens intact. This point might seem a bit out there. And it is. But it is not an alien consideration. There is a reason why cultures around the world place greater value on virgins rather than on well, non-virgins. A point that is notable among the religious.
This is why things like chastity and virginity are upheld on moralistic grounds primarily with respect to women. For it carries a certain value proposition, albeit a less culturally significant one in the secular West. But the point remains that the value that is placed on virginity is one that applies solely to the female half of our species. I mean when was the last time a girl was on the lookout to get busy with a male virgin!
The point is for an A-list actor, sports star, top musicians, politicians, members of the royal family and those of high social status have less trouble One: getting access to and Two: having women who are willing to consent to their sexual designs. And this point need not be understood solely in an exploitative sense. Whilst that is a real possibility with men with power.
As the examples galore: from the harem owing Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei, to the playboy lifestyle embodied by Hugh Hefner, to the borderline (or real) criminal escapades of Prince Andrew. All of these men used their power born of wealth and status to gain access to a lot of women. And the women, whilst generally complying, albeit incentivized by riches, themselves were not always treated the best. Or in some cases were abused.
The dangers of absolute power corrupting absolutely in the sexual realm was most evident in the dictatorship of the now-deposed Libyan colonel. To the farcical ‘bunga bunga’ escapades of the former Italian Prime Minister
However, what is often missed in these tales of powerful men who exploit their authority to gain access to women (and presumably in the process exploit them), is that a lot of women actually go for men with the bling. The money, the power, the status, the overt lasciviousness, and the paradoxical sex appeal that such men are able to project via these, are something women find alluring.
Women, when they are in the presence of such men, they appear evolutionarily predisposed to pursue, tend to, and become more open and willing to do things and even commit themselves to hedonistic lifestyles with men of such status, that they otherwise would not with men who do not bring such material promise.
A rather crude logic of life.
It means that a lot of ‘good’, ‘decent’, ‘hard working’ (but not wealthy) men stand to lose out, as girls in their age range or social level will always look higher. Even if that means going for men who are egoistic, hedonistic, materialistic beasts.
This phenomenon of men getting ‘friend-zoned’: which is to be dismissed as a sexual or romantic prospect by women, can partly be attributed to the appeal of high-status men. Men with power, high incomes, and those who are charismatic and politically captivating (such as the sexually rapacious late Fidel Castro) get not just the best girls (8 – 10s in the looks department) but also come to near-monopolize access to women in terms of sheer numbers vis a vie the kind of resources they come to command.
As a side point, given that men with power have a more experience with women, they are less inhibited sexually and are not afraid to put themselves out there. The ‘good guys’ with little experience, will tend to hold back their sexuality, opening the door to the friend-zone.
Thus there is more to this debate on sexual market value. Whilst it is easy to focus on the success that men with power have when it comes to women. One should not forget the plight of the powerless masses of men who make up the lower strata of society.
Returning to Ye, and the dozens of two-piece bathing suit-clad ‘gold diggers’ who strutted the stage; it is easy to think, particularly for the moralistic types, that these girls are objectified for their sexuality, and hence are being exploited as people. Whilst this point has some credence, it misses the broader, cultural context in which it takes place. One that takes us to the next key point on the subject of female sexuality and its social worth.
THE NATURE OF FEMALE OBJECTIFICATION
Arguably one of the most defining visual representations of Western women is that of a girl in a bikini. The idea (or ideal) of female beauty, personal freedom, sexual expression, and in some respects political liberation that is captured by a female in a two-piece bathing suit is controversial as it is interesting.
The bikini communicates a number of things about how Western women are perceived or ought to be perceived. Namely that women in Western, capitalist societies, who are characterized by a metropolitan spirit of freedom and agency; and are empowered as individuals to do as they please with respect to their moral and economic considerations in relation to their idea of self-esteem. One that the rest of society, including the organizations who employ them to do so, must respect.
In other words, just because a girl is able to wear a bikini and strut the stage in a music concert or beauty pageant, does not make her any less of a human being. Her personal worth as an independent, conscious individual with her own sense of worth and dignity remains.
A guy who sees a girl who is, let’s say, wearing little to nothing (i.e. a girl on a beach) is right to look (but not stare) at her, approach her if the timing and context is right, and proceed to move things forward if he can build some kind of connection with her. But he is not entitled to her in any way. The banality that men are not entitled to sex with women must be stated more strongly particularly if the girl is attired in clothing that is considered to be sexually stimulating.
Just because a woman is scantily clad does not lessen her social or moral worth in any way. If anything it actually-and here I, like many men, can speak from experience-makes her more desirable, and hence valuable in the eyes of men.
Sometime in 2012, as an undergrad in my early twenties, I was volunteering for this big event in London. For some reason, the ratio of boys to girls was like 5 to 1. Good odds to say the least. And there were a few girls around I was interested.
However, there was this tall brunette who I found most intriguing. She was tall (taller than me), English (Anglo), spoke with a polished British accent-apparently had a grammar school education-and on one occasion I caught her reading 50 Shades of Grey. She was the real deal.
As I was mustering up the courage to approach her on one hot afternoon during a break, when we had just finished one of our rehearsals, I saw her making her way toward the drinks station. This time in a slim white top and a black sports bikini. When I saw her, she had this look where women, when they know that a guy is checking them out, and they know that they are good for it, and thus enjoy the attention.
This was too much for yours truly. Approaching a hot girl is one thing, but when she is showcasing this level of sexiness… put her out of my league. If I had enough experience at that point dating free-spirited girls, and had the kind of self-confidence as a result, I would have made a move. I didn’t. She seemed wayy too hot to handle!
Speaking of making ‘a move’, the cultural context of a debate such as this is important. Recall here the New Year’s Eve (2015) attack on hundreds of German women in Cologne by a group of immigrants. The men, predominantly of Middle Eastern origin and overwhelmingly Islamic, were the culprits of the assault. Some of which were rapes.
These are men from cultures where women are perceived as either mothers or virgins and nothing much in between. At least as far as their sexuality and its social function is concerned. Women whose role was to be chaste virginal daughters; who, upon marriage to their guardians/husbands would give birth to and raise children; and function as dutiful wives to their husbands for the rest of their lives.
Upon entering a different culture, encountering Western women, who are ethnically European, who are, not exactly scantily clad-I mean this was the start of Winter in a Central European nation-but were let’s say, more physically present. Which apparently gave these non-Western men a certain sexual entitlement that was totally unjustified.
One that was problematic at two levels. One: was the obvious objectification of women as sex objects and then acting upon that impulse in the most uncivilized way. Two: Was the cultural/religious and possible racial dimension of this assault. Which I will not engage here.
The perverse psychology that underpinned the assault on German women was born of a morally hypocritical view that placed the control of male sexuality in the hands (or anatomies) of women, thereby negating any moral culpability, if an error is made or crime committed.
The counterargument that the (Western) women brought this attack upon themselves owing to the “attention” they drew based on how they were their attired: one that was supposed to be “immodest”. At least in contrast to the burka or niqab-wearing walking-nuns you find in the Middle Eastern nations, is ludicrous.
Interestingly, this selective moralism when it comes to sex, and particularly female sexuality, that is pervasive in the non-Western world, has even begun to infect the Christian portion of Western culture. With the growing emphasis on chastity, and virginity, and the analogous point on “modesty” becoming a growing part of the (Christian) cultural converse. This is a subject for another time. However, a worthy takeaway from the Christian worldview is the concept of dignity, as it applies to human beings in relation to their sexuality.
Dignity is a powerful word. And it is especially interesting when used in relation to a girl in a bikini. (Bear with me). Whilst it might be tempting for some to think that a girl who is wearing something that reveals all of her feminine curves and leaves little to the imagination, is somehow lesser or unworthy, or worthy only of our judgment. This view misses the point about the intrinsic worth of all human beings. One that applies irrespective of your way of life or choice of clothing.
That is what is different, or better sacred about Western culture.
Where people and institutions are respected and valued for who they are, and the choices they make by exercising their volition at a personal level and at varying degrees professional level. Provided the choices do not cause real harm, not imagined ones, to others, notable minors. The American idea of ‘It is a free country’ captures this notion the best.
So the girls who were strutting the stage as they danced to Ye’s Gold digger whilst clearly a subject of objectification vis a vie their showcased sexuality: curves, legs, golden hair you name it! However, it is not right for the viewer (male or female) to think of them as any lesser than the girl who is walking down Canary Wharf attired formerly.
At the same one must not forget that women in a sense, like being objectified. Objectification, depending on the timing and context is actually a good thing. A woman who desires a certain man would enjoy being the object of his passion. To be considered sexually attractive and wanting to be possessed by someone who you find attractive/desirable is a mark of being human.
When you see celebrity models like Kendal Jenner strutting the catwalks of top runways you see that look of pride and passion in their eyes. These women like being objectified. By the eyes of countless people, most of them men. Men, who can look on and admire, and desire but never truly possess. In this equation who exactly is the more powerful one? It is the beauteous female of course.
When it comes to the subject of female objectification in popular culture, much of the attention has been paid to the problem of catcalling, and in a more serious context, the perverted practice of taking photos of unsuspecting women in secret. Both scenarios are not ideal. The latter is very problematic and must be condemned and in some ways prohibited. However, what is generally missed in these debates is the status or rather relative powerlessness of the men in this equation.
Sure these men who catcall girls as they walk by are not exactly helping the women they are directing their attention towards. However, in proceeding to engage them, they are also (provided it involves no vulgarity or threats) indirectly validates the power that young beautiful women vis-a-vie their beauty and its power to captivate, have over men. Most men.
The only problem in the catcalling business (again provided it does not involve verbal abuse) is that the persons doing the catcalling are NOT to the girl’s liking. The men in question aren’t rich, powerful ballers who drive fast cars, live in mansions, and have a potentially large trust fund. That is the problem.
If the guy wants the girl’s attention, affection, and appreciation he has to earn it, like every other man who enters her life. It doesn’t matter if she is wearing a bikini or a business suit. The only issue is that some guys will have an easier time doing so.
THE ALPHA MALE PROTOCOL
In recent times there has been growing focus online (where else) on the dynamics that underpin male-female relationships. From the nature of female selection of male partners to the attention on the growing numbers of young men in the West who are not having sex, at least in contrast to the decades past, to the rise in the availability and usage of pornography, and to a lesser extent, the declining birth rates among women in the West.
Underpinning much of these discussions is the concept of hypergamy: which relates to women’s preference for high-status men. Status, which is defined relative to their socio-economic status. A fact that is most evident in the world of online dating. Tinder, arguably the world’s largest dating app for straight men and women, is one where over 75 percent of users (in the United States) are male (3).
And if you spend any amount of time in bars and clubs and other nighttime settings where men and women congregate, you will notice that girls have little trouble attracting attention. Admittedly, much of the attention the girls receive will be from those who are seeking something more ‘short term’, but the point remains. Plus, one can say that even carnal unions which begin with no serious motive for commitment, can potentially give rise to long-term relationships.
For all the talk about women having a hard time finding partners, a girl just needs to go out, dress decently, not even provocatively, do her hair, and with some light makeup and she will have a number of guys hitting on her throughout the evening.
The counterargument here would be, well the guys are just looking for sex but the girls want something more substantial. Thus guys can afford to throw themselves around, whilst girls can afford to wait. And things will even out in the end. True to an extent. But it does not change that the big players will come to dominate access to women. Particularly the hotter, younger variety.
This state of affairs is unfair to the majority of men. But life is like that. The dance between male and female in the journey towards love is not straightforward and is never simple. But it is easier for women. As they have what most men don’t: options. This is why girls tend to be picky when it comes to the guys they speak to, hang out with, date, and get busy with. This state of affairs in turn compels men to compete with each for the top spots. And compete they must. Not always directly, but in their area of work.
The dating dynamics for men are very different from that of women. The average guy is generally not the center of attention no matter how good-looking he is. Unless he happens to be a celebrity. This is probably why certain clubs charge an entrance fee for men, or sometimes let the girls in at a lower price or give them special access to restricted areas of the clubs. The areas where ballers and even celebrities mingle. Elon Musk for example (apologies – the guy is in the news quite a bit these days) met his second wife, the English actress Talulah Riley in the VIP section of a nightclub in Mayfair.
Now there are some arguments from evolutionary theorists on why females would mate with (i.e. out of wedlock) with rock stars, and rich wild men just for their genes, which are in high demand. But would actually prefer settling down with men who are stable, predictable, and faithful (i.e. boring and with a relatively lower social status).
Meaning women would like to have the best of both worlds: sire children from womanizing playboys who have a higher sexual market value. But choose to settle down with ‘family men’, with decent market value: who are likely to stick around and pay for their long-term upkeep. As for those at the bottom with no market value, bad luck for them.
At the end of the day women, provided they still have their youth, health (fertility) and at varying levels, attractiveness with them, start with a clear advantage. And rightly so if you ask me. Before I answer why. Let’s look at another example of female mate selection.
The point about the growing focus, at least online particularly on social media platforms like YouTube on dating and relationships is worth another look here. In the past few months, I have encountered a number of YouTube channels with high subscriber counts, along with relatively smaller ones engaging directly or via podcast conversations on the subjects of dating and mating in the modern world. Particularly the struggles many men are facing in the West when it comes to attracting women, and the accompanying challenge faced by boys in trying to become a man of greater social worth.
In one instance, a channel hosted by a female YouTuber that is dedicated to helping men in their dating life interviewed a group of six American women in their 20s and 30s. They were quizzed on a number of subjects concerning a prospective partner. Their responses were honest and illuminating. All of them came with high expectations with respect to the income level of their future spouses. Wanting men who fall into the top 10 percent of income earners ($ 170, 000 – $ 1, 000, 000 per annum)(4).
At first, the ladies were not aware that the men who made that kind of money were the cream of the crop. And that getting them to make a long-term commitment is a low-probability move, all else considered.
Here it was interesting to see their reactions when the reality of finding men who made that amount of money, the kind of money that is needed for the girls to live “comfortably” (a term that kept cropping up), was known. The fact that a lot of men in society (in America – which is one of the wealthiest) don’t reach such heights came as a realization.
Another interesting point was how a majority of the girls seemed to indicate their openness or possible desire to be homemakers. With men doing all the work in terms of bringing home the bacon, whilst they occupy themselves with the task of managing the household.
This is a major subject, which requires a dedicated write-up. For it seems that a lot of modern women appear to miss the ‘good ol’ days when all a girl had to do was find a good man who would provide for her and be faithful to her. Where women could just concern themselves with the duties of the household. Whilst that thought process seems to have beaten out of women in the West through decades of feminism. It is one that still lingers in the hearts of Western women.
Returning to the main topic of mate selection, the responses given by these women in that interview, where primacy was placed upon the economic status of men, and their role as providers as a precondition for entering into a meaningful union is a good indication of how women in the Western world actually think when it comes to long term relationships. Or any relationships for that matter.
Speaking from experience, the way women react to you based on responses to the: ‘what do you do’ question is quite revealing. Whilst women generally aren’t the most inquisitive ones at the start of a potential relationship (i.e. following an approach and in the ensuing interaction), the manner in which the guy answers questions that pertain to: ‘What kind of career does he have?’ + ‘What kind of money do you stand to make?’ Or provide responses that indirectly hint at these, even when such questions are not posed; goes a long way in determining the outcome of that relationship. Even if it is meant to be a short-term one.
We men like women for what they are: young, healthy, attractive specimens. Women like men for what they are doing and what they can do or achieve or attain in the future. This is why men with high-income levels and higher social status have no problem getting girls. Not only as long-term partners but even for short-term hookups.
That’s right. A girl is more likely to take her clothes off if the guy in question is of reasonable social standing vis a vie his career. Even if the fling is not likely to lead anywhere. This is why rock stars, top athletes, and royalty tend to have a huge number of short-term partners. With the likes of Mike Jagger, Jack Nicholson, Dennis Rodman, Gene Simmons, and King Carlos of Spain with lay counts (women you have slept with in a lifetime) numbering in the thousands! (5).
Contrast that with the average American guy who has partners in the 6 – 7 mark over a lifetime. In addition a lot of men who simply opt out, or fall out of the mating game due to a variety of reasons (e.g. incels and celibate priests)(6).
The fact is women are not only picky when it comes to the kind of men they choose to settle down with (high-income earners, who are stable, reliable, and trustworthy). But are less picky when it comes to the kind of causal encounters they choose to have, provided the men in question are of high status.
THE PROBLEM WITH GENDER EQUALITY
The title of this essay on how men are better than women comes down to how the sexes match up in specific areas of life that deal with value creation and authority. The fact that the leaders in all major industries from IT, energy, transportation, biological sciences, aeronautics, finance, pharmaceuticals, armaments, sports, and e-commerce are men is telling.
From the list of the world’s richest people to the leaders of major world powers, to the heads of the major world religions, to the CEOs of blue chip companies to the percentage of males to females in STEM-related subjects, men are dominant across the board. Despite efforts in recent years to shift things in favour of women, this disparity has held firm. And with good reason.
Now, this is not the place to get into the factors that have led to enduring differences between males and females in these major spheres of life, but the numbers speak for themselves. Men for a variety of reasons are more likely to take on roles that lead them on the path towards leadership and authority in a given field of expertise, and at the same are more strongly disposed to remain in these roles once they get established in a given field.
And it is the men who do rise to the top, or at least make significant progress in their chosen areas of expertise that have greater success with women. However many men do not succeed in life or even come close to the idea of attaining a degree of financial stability: The basic requisite when it comes to attracting women and being recognized as a responsible citizen.
The failure on part of many men in the West to attain their fullest potential; along with, arguably the majority of men to even coming close to utilizing their gifts (underemployment), has led to a class divide of sorts in the world of men. Between the men who have much, to the men who have relatively less, followed by a sea of men who have very little.
This is a major blind-side of the feminist movement. The fact that it has not considered the plight of (the majority of) men at the bottom of the socio-economic pile in engaging the disparities between the sexes. Whilst it is true that men dominate the world in terms of power and resources; however the powerless segments of society are also dominated by men: The homeless, the prison populations, the victims of violent crime, drug use etc. Debates on gender equality have been woefully ignorant or purposefully dismissive of these realities.
When one considers the developments of various men’s movements in the West today: Many of which have cropped up partly in response to these sexual social dynamics. From the red pill, black pill, and MGTOW to incels. All of these define their social identity apart from, or in opposition to women (i.e. their sexuality and structure of preference for mates): Where intimacy with females is viewed as either socially problematic, personally undermining or impossibly unattainable.
Needless to say that the bulk of men who make up these groups are those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. They may not be total losers but they are not the big players either. And worse a lot of these men embrace a mindset of victimhood, where they blame society, women, feminism, education or the welfare state for their personal problems. And not without reason.
But that is the nature of life and men will simply have to deal with it. No matter how tough or unfair things are, there will always be winners in this game. And the girls will always, always gravitate towards the leaders of the pack.
Why? Because women purely from an evolutionary standpoint, favour men who make up the cream of the crop.
A point that was truer in historical times when access to modern contraception was not available. In times when women were made to sire children for the alpha males, had little choice in the matter. With the men who fathered the offspring being conquering warlords and kings. From the likes of Genghis Khan and Sultan Ismail Ibn Sharif of Morocco. Fathering children in the high hundreds (and possibly well over a thousand) (7).
Further, an argument can be made that a lot of the women who became the wives, concubines and mistresses of these rulers did so of their own accord. Or at least they may have warmed to the idea of sleeping with one great man with many wives, rather than settle for a lowly foot soldier with none.
A view that is curiously evident in dating apps in modern times. Where not only is the ratio of women to men heavily skewed in favour of females, but the choice of men from this larger number, that women actually go for is also terribly small. Effectively putting a vast number of men out of contention from the get-go.
Dating apps, which can be seen as a technological innovation that helps brings men and women together, but given its disparity (the higher number of men to women) reflects the difficulty greater numbers of men have when it comes to meeting women. The men at the top, needless to say, are not spending hours per week swiping or clicking through dating apps. For men with power, access to females is a function of their status in life.
This is why money, and what underpins it, or results from it: status and power, are key factors that determine the dating and mating success of men. This is why men, principally risk much to attain these. As a man, your worth is determined by how much value you can generate through your work. Which is why (most) men strive so hard to succeed in life. Because we have to.
A girl is less likely to go out with a guy, let alone bang him or marry him for his looks, youth, or values. These things matter. But they matter far less when it comes to sexual selection for females.
Here it is worth asking: Does this justify women having such high (i.e. potentially unrealistic) standards when it comes to picking their long-term partners? Shouldn’t modern relationships become more equitable in a financial sense given the changes that are taking place in society?
Considering that money is arguably the most important variable in an existing or potential new relationship from the standpoint of females; shouldn’t an actual 50/50 relationship: where the girl contributes half across the board when it comes to the financial dimension of the relationship, ought to become the way forward? Especially when it comes to the costs of divorce, childcare, alimony etc. Justified in the name of ‘gender equality’ of all things!
If the problem of declining birthrates in the West can be traced back to a lack of interest in marriage and the idea of forming long-term commitments among Western men. As men, today know that family law concerning divorce and childcare is heavily tilted towards women. Not to mention the broader cultural narrative on “Women’s Empowerment” and “Gender Equality” for some reason has nothing say about improving the outlook for men in the modern world.
Especially considering that in serious matters such as life expectancy, vulnerability to violent crime and suicide, as noted; areas where men fare poorly in contrast to women. In many of these debates on the status of women and men in the modern world, the fact that a lot of men remain at the men at the bottom of the pile is simply ignored in the broader discourse on the topic of the sexes.
Considering the fact all the top-performing men aren’t necessarily going to settle down with every girl who throws themselves at them, it would mean that women ultimately will have to settle for men who make much less and have lower social status. In this case, the gold digger principle of marrying or sleeping with a man for his money (to put it crudely) ought to change. Or at least there could be a new incentive structure on how women come to view relationships, and how society approaches the question of gender equality.
Here’s my controversial recommendation to this problem: If women prefer men with high value, shouldn’t society ought to consider the prospect of ‘Empowering Men’. Since the women of our species only favour the alphas. And that men in general, at least the ambitious ones have little interest in women with respect to their career prospects. Which makes the idea of making men in society stronger a better bet for long-term social cohesion.
In addition leaving an army of low-value men to roam the streets without a woman to call their own, combined with poor economic prospects is a bad bet for social stability.
Given that we are living in times where women are empowered to do everything men can, and are required to be respected as equals. Well more than equals it seems, since men and women have been legally equal for some time in the West; the narrative today is one where women not only be empowered to be good as men, but the underlying message is that women be empowered to be independent of men.
If that is the case, when it comes to relationships, the question must be asked: What is the point of men being providers, or having to be perceived as such despite all the opposition, or at least the lack of social support in their (our) quest to achieve excellence in life? Why do men have to go through the process of working to win over women with the power of the wallet, when women not only wish to be equal to men socio-economically but also to be independent of (or potentially be rid) men!?
Well unless we are talking about the alpha males at the top of the pile, who command the respect of society, the attention of men of lower status and the desire of women in general.
Well, there is a long and short answer to this question. The short answer is: that is the way the world is: unfair, inconsiderate and unforgiving. And we men simply gotta accept it and work till we achieve success or at least, as the title of 50 Cent’s album goes: to ‘Get rich or die Tryin’. The long answer takes us to the next section of this essay.
MEN AND WOMEN: EQUAL AND DIFFERENT
In the movie Titanic, once the film enters the sinking stage of the story, there is a powerful moment (among many), where the lifeboats are loaded up with women and children.
Since the lifeboats that were available at the time were not enough to ensure the safety of all, the women and children were prioritized. The men simply had to find their way. Not many did. According to statistics, around 80 percent of the men on board the Titanic did not survive (7).
The scene where the officer guarding boats working to ensure the safety of women and children, is marked by great irony. Men risking, or better sacrificing their lives in order to safeguard those of women and children. The men ensured the lives of the opposite sex by ensuring their own did not survive!
This is one of the weird things about feminism in the modern world. Of how curiously ignorant or wilfully dismissive it is of the lengths men go to protect, defend, and advance the lives of women in their lives and the wider world. A subject no doubt for another time. But the point is pertinent.
For no matter how ‘equal’ things become between men and women, men will always be expected to be the providers, defenders, protectors, and yes leaders in the lives of women. And women will always choose men who are best at or at least have the potential to be the best at doing it.
Whilst feminism has made the case for women’s equality in relation to what men have historically achieved and attained in the social sphere. And women no doubt have made progress in the external environment (beyond the household). However these advances were greatly predicated on societal changes, much of it socio-economic and technological, most of which have altered the character of society in ways that have suited women physiologically and psychologically (e.g. deindustrialization).
The changes which have indirectly empowered women to do the things that men have historically done: such as entering the workforce in numbers (the rise of the service industry which suits the physically less able females). However, the newly empowered woman still remains the same female as an organism. The way she was around the dawn of modern man.
Women and men are fundamentally biological creatures. Our biology dictates how we think, learn, interact, socialize and select mates. Socio-economic trends, technological developments, the welfare state, globalization, and feminism have paradoxically changed little despite changing much. And that’s a good thing.
For this (unfavorable) state of affairs forces us men to go out, learn, grow, work, and succeed. To give everything we have, not at the altar of money, but in the pursuit of success. Which comes through excellence in a given field: Sports, Art, Science, Politics, and Religion. For only the fittest, not exactly survive but rather excel. And it is the pursuit of excellence that drives the progress of society or ‘History’. As Charles Darwin notes in The Descent of Man:
‘With highly civilized nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless, the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection’.
Despite the rise of modern industrial society, the Darwinian principle of the survival of fittest is still operative. Albeit in a more subtle but socio-culturally pervasive way. One that functions as an underlying force that drives human endeavors. One that governs the broader societal disposition to reward, often disproportionately, those who rise to the top. The question is: what is stopping vast numbers of men, who at a deeper level want to, from actually doing so?
Here the message for men is NOT to rise up against the extant social order. Well unless it happens to be communist or socialist. Or to go their own way, by rejecting the beauty and wonder of women. But to work to rise up in the eyes of their peers by becoming valuable contributors in their chosen fields. To be recognized by the organs of culture and the institutions of society by either producing something or becoming something of value.
Look at it this way: if you are the sort of guy who is going to attract gold diggers, the over types who care little for the person, then you are better positioned when it comes to finding a worthy female partner. A girl who will cherish and love you for who you really are. With the options at your disposal, you ought to be able to differentiate the good ones from those who are just after your money. But to get to this stage you need to make it in life.
Do something. Anything. Just make sure it is better than what anyone else can do. Or at least comes close to the best. Women, even today, can afford to do nothing and still have hundreds of men chasing them. Men cannot.
The counterargument here is that not all men will succeed. So it is impossible to expect men, all men to rise in life. True, but only to an extent.
Whilst most men are not going to become rock stars and ace football players. Let alone millionaires, that does not mean men cannot become better versions of themselves by striving to become something in this life, and actually succeed in doing so. The new digital age provides men with the tools and networks to rise up despite the many obstacles.
The problem concerning the obstacles that keep men from fulfilling their potential and succeeding in life is a reflection of how badly our societies are governed. This comes down to:
Bad policy making.
Bad governance.
Bad economic management.
In sum: Bad politics.
Now, this is something men ought to consider rising up against. The pursuit of success in this life for men is not simply a question of wealth and status, it is ultimately one of sanity and survival.
IF WOMEN ARE GOLD DIGGERS MEN MUST Be(COME) ALCHEMISTS
It is difficult to wake up on any given day and not be bombarded with bad news: Negativity, pain, hurt, loss, and the loss of hope are the defining features of modern news media, and frankly even modern storytelling. As an example take the hideously misandrist sci-fi show Picard (2020). Which presents a world that is not only without hope or joy but one where people who inhabit it seem inherently opposed to the true, the good, and the beautiful.
The modern world seems to run on negative energy. (Twitter anyone). We seem to, or apparently are required to, define our thoughts and actions in relation to the problems that are going on in the world. From wars, inflation, political corruption, the effects of global pandemics, social instability, diseases, weakening economies, and crime. The list goes on and on.
However, amidst all of this negativity, pain, and absence of hope there are some who do well. Who do extremely well. The winners, champions, and leaders who rise to the top and/or maintain their esteemed position. With new personnel, victors one could say-in case the point is missed-entering that list every day.
In outlining the Darwinian logic of life, it was my intention to make clear that the world we live in is defined by winners and losers. That no matter how equitable things are or supposed to be, or how equality, equity, and social justice have been elevated as the venerated concepts of our time. The truth is that success, greatness, and glory remain the true drivers of mankind.
From the point of view of the average Joe, the success achieved by the titans of this world: the multimillionaires and billionaires, the top athletes, the tech entrepreneurs, and to famed filmmakers and artists may seem unattainable. Almost a dream even. To be able to live a life where that level of prosperity and honor is given to a few men, may even seem unthinkable in terms of its attainability for the rest.
Especially considering everything else that is happening around you, which seems to work against the aspirational spirit of man. To say nothing of the effects of modern feminism, which has effectively pitted men against women. So with all this going on, how are we men supposed to do what we were made to do: achieve the impossible? That is greatness.
Whether we realize it or not, when we start out in this life, we are already on this journey to attain what is essentially the impossible: Speaking of a boy with developing cognitive abilities, no resources, curtailed physical powers, requiring the support of parents to fulfill even the most basics needs (well unless you’re Bruce Wayne). To then grow, learn, and acquire the skills and experiences to venture out and do great things, or at least work towards it. THIS is what defines the life of a man. All the whilst we carry within ourselves the dream of wanting to do what at the time seems impossible, given all the obstacles that lay ahead of us and within.
The power of alchemy: that of turning base metals into gold through a process of transmutation; or the Elixir of life which has the power to grant immortality to the drinker (a story that long predates The Philosopher’s Stone); and for the fans of the famous anime, the law of Equivalent Exchange: Building on the first law of thermodynamics, it holds that something cannot be created from nothing; but that in order to obtain something, it adds that, something else of value must be lost or sacrificed.
My statement ‘that men must become alchemists’, is to point out that the process of becoming a man, a man of value who achieves something of significance in life is to pursue the impossible. As only so few manage it. But the difference is that those who do reach great heights never stop confronting the impossibility of challenges that lie ahead of them and chose to keep fighting. Choose to keep taking that extra step in the face of hurdles and adversity.
Today alchemy as an art/science is consigned to the world of fantasy or science fiction. However, the underlying principle of striving to do what at first seems impossible has not been lost. (Imaging what the idea of landing on the Moon seemed like to our ancestors when they first looked up at our natural satellite and wondered).
In many ways, the dreams of men that begin in childhood: of wanting to do great, heroic impossible things, continue to fuel our imagination as the harsh realities and limitations of life dawn upon us. But the sprit to pursue and do great things does not die. Unless we permit it.
The ones who succeed in this endeavor to do, what at first seems impossible, are the winners who have less trouble not only in winning fair lady’s heart but also the respect and admiration of society.
To be desired by women is a function of what a man has and can achieve in his life. Great men: from professional footballers to pioneering thinkers, great philosophers, and orators, scientific prodigies, to technical experts who are at the top of their game are the alchemists of our time. For these men money (gold) is not a problem. Nor the love of women.