Are women worth more than men?

[mike2010fc]

.....

 

[OnceFuturePoly]

I guess this isn't really a how to, but I was looking for perfume the other day and noticed that a good woman's fragrance is $50 or so, whereas a man's is more like $25 or less. Same thing with clothes, I buy jeans for $20, hers are $40 or more. 16% of people in the military are women (so men are 5 times more expendable?) If you look at this list of countries by sex ratio and click on the "Over 65" sort, the warn-torn eastern european countries ended up with about 2 women for every man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

I remember in college that there were generally no parties with an equal number of guys and girls, and it created a lot of sexual tension. Usually there were at least 2 guys trying to meet each girl. Supposedly Ibiza, Spain has 3 women for every man, I can't imagine what that must be like.

Anyway, my theory is that when humans were evolving, men generally killed or banished each other until there were roughly 2 women for every man (a wife and a mistress) so there is something in our DNA that tends towards that arrangement. War torn countries are generally stable once that ratio is reached. If you look at middle eastern countries (and someday China) the ratio is more like 2 men for every woman and it creates tremendous suffering. A major conflict in the middle east or asia is all but certain at this point (perceived lack of money, power and sex always leads to war).

It looks to me like a woman is worth at least 2 men. This has a lot of ramifications in the real world. Imagine if I messaged 100 women and miraculously got 50 responses. The next day it would be 25, then 12, and eventually 0. On dating sites, I usually had to message at least 10 women to get 1 response. I heard an interesting quote once: "sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive". Women are probably worth even more than I'm proposing. Entire countries have gone to war over a single woman. Many men would give everything they own or have ever accomplished for the love of a woman. I don't think the reverse is true.

Even though the US is supposedly a male dominated society (Congress is only 17% female), I don't see that reflected in the real world. Most advertising seems to be targeted at women now. Take reality TV, say home improvement shows. Men generally work for women in one form or another. I think that women have a kind of shadow power, like the vice president, that's been active since time began. A president's wife enjoys the same standard of living as her husband, without the daily misery that he endures. In the end, a mother/sister/daughter/wife often has more say in a man's life than another man.

I know each of these arguments can be trivially dismantled, but overall, does anyone think there's any truth to this question?

Mike

A fun question...

Right now, I'm stuck on the definition of, or how to measure, "worth".

 

[Lord Pmann]

I think a lot of it is supply and demand.

Your perfume example. It's not that men's cologne is cheaper to make than women's. There is probably 25 cents worth of cat pee in either. But, men are less apt to buy such items at that price.

And clothes aren't necessarily cheaper. If you buy a pair of Lucky Brand jeans for men, they will be nearly the same as women's. In fact, shoes from the same maker are often more expensive for men than for women, though more material is used.

Also, certain fields are male dominated. Fields that rely more on physical strength are male dominated, for obvious reasons. Computers and engineering are dominated by men, because of interest. Marketing is an interest more in line with women's interest in general.

Your messaging of women example is not great either. Women are less likely to respond because of the number of guys that they have available to them. Think of this site. How many girls have you PM'd? How many have PM'd you? In order to get an unsolicited PM from a girl on this site, you have to be pretty damned clever. Ahem. And in order to get a response from a girl, you have to make it worth their while.

Sexuality is viewed differently from guys and girls. Strictly sexually and biologically speaking, sex is a zero consequence game for guys. That's why guys have lower standards when it comes to "just getting laid". It's not uncommon for a guy to jump at the first girl who will sleep with him. That's far less common for girls. It happens. But those girls are much more rare. The unicorns of the female race.

For girls, sex is consequential. They have the potential to get pregnant. That's something that naturally and subconsciously, a woman considers. Girls look for things other than just physical attraction. The ability to provide, the likelihood that they will provide good genetics and the likelihood they will actually stick around. It's much less a breeding mentality than guys have. It's a decision based in much more thought than a guy's process.

So while it seems that women control the world, well, they sort of do. They are the ones who reap the consequences of the activities.

 

[fire_breeze]

Uh. Kinda. What I see here, if you don't mind me butting in, is several arguments composed of apples, oranges, peppers, quinoa and chicken that individually can be deconstructed and together doesn't really make sense - and this is coming from a feminist, by the way. The moment, in my opinion, you start saying that one group of people is worth more than another, you have the beginnings of supremacy.

<snip>
If you look at this list of countries by sex ratio and click on the "Over 65" sort, the warn-torn eastern european countries ended up with about 2 women for every man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

I remember in college that there were generally no parties with an equal number of guys and girls, and it created a lot of sexual tension. Usually there were at least 2 guys trying to meet each girl. Supposedly Ibiza, Spain has 3 women for every man, I can't imagine what that must be like.

(psst: Ibiza is traditionally a party, sex-fueled tourist town - and that probably has a lot to play with the ratio - and may I ask where you got that statistic from? Can't find it anywhere)

From a brief look, the ratio starts to skew around 65 - before then, in most countries, it's relatively equal. The numbers differ whether or not there was war or famine. Furthermore, men die younger than women - this is a biological fact. However, in childbearing years, it seems that ratio is relatively 1:1 in most places.

Anyway, my theory is that when humans were evolving, men generally killed or banished each other until there were roughly 2 women for every man (a wife and a mistress) so there is something in our DNA that tends towards that arrangement. War torn countries are generally stable once that ratio is reached. If you look at middle eastern countries (and someday China) the ratio is more like 2 men for every woman and it creates tremendous suffering. A major conflict in the middle east or asia is all but certain at this point (perceived lack of money, power and sex always leads to war).

I'm sorry, but this argument has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. There are more women because women live longer - wars are rarely fought over the skewed ratio of genders. I've spent a good 10 minutes trying to find any support and validation for your point here and found zilch. It makes no sense and flies in the face of science and of history.

You do realise that the Middle East has always had a conflict/war for the past, oh, 5000 years, right? You also realise that in some Middle Eastern countries - Saudi Arabia, for example - women are not even considered to be full persons? And that some others, women are, by law, considered to be second-class citizens, with limited power and opportunity? This inequality may contribute to conflict (as women are not the only ones suppressed in these countries but most of the men too), but it's not because of women.

Your supposition of 'one women, one mistress' is woefully inaccurate. Traditionally, in polygamous societies, men had multiple wives and mistresses. The difference? Men had to equally, fully support wives in the manner they were accustomed to or better. Wives were protected (this is why only wealthy men had multiple wives). He wasn't obligated to support his concubines.

It looks to me like a woman is worth at least 2 men. This has a lot of ramifications in the real world. Imagine if I messaged 100 women and miraculously got 50 responses. The next day it would be 25, then 12, and eventually 0. On dating sites, I usually had to message at least 10 women to get 1 response.

Dating sites statistically attract more men than women, so women are a hot commodity on these sites. Even on Lit, there are considerable more men than women, so women can afford to be choosy. The question, unrelated, is - how do you formulate and word your messages?

I heard an interesting quote once: "sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive". Women are probably worth even more than I'm proposing. Entire countries have gone to war over a single woman. Many men would give everything they own or have ever accomplished for the love of a woman. I don't think the reverse is true.

Bullshit. That's all I can say. I am more than willing to give everything I owe for my all. He knows it too. And there are more than enough evidence to support it - women do leave their families, their inheritance for the one they love.

Sperm is cheap because it's easier to obtain (and safer). An ova is a) limited b) not easy to extract and c) can go seriously wrong if the procedure isn't performed to exact specifications. Sperm? You jerk off in a cup.

And I'm a bit confused to your statement that entire countries has gone to war over a single woman. Helen of Troy is a myth. Princess Bilqees Bhaghi was threatened with kidnapping so her brother started a war, and if I'm not mistaken, China went to war over a concubine, but that's it. Not entire countries, but only 2 historical occurrences, one mythological.

Even though the US is supposedly a male dominated society (Congress is only 17% female), I don't see that reflected in the real world. Most advertising seems to be targeted at women now. Take reality TV, say home improvement shows. Men generally work for women in one form or another. I think that women have a kind of shadow power, like the vice president, that's been active since time began.

A 'male dominated society' or patriarchy is essentially who holds most of the political, public power. And yes, we still live in a time of a patriarchy - same pay for same work is rare in most jobs - in other words, a male neurosurgeon/executive/manager who has the same education, same experiences, same style will probably make more than his female counterpart. Men are most likely voted into political power than women, even if both are equally qualified. THAT'S what 'male dominated' society means. And for what it's worth, patriarchy (or in my not so humble opinion, most 'archys' hurt the majority people in society. For Western patriarchy, it's mostly composed of WASPs, rich, Ivy League educated, 'old family' men (and yes, I know there are exceptions, with the current president as the prime example. I'm speaking generally). Poor, middle class, immigrant (and their recent descendants), non WASP men rarely have an political sway. The decisions made by those in power most of reflect their needs, not the needs of the majority (and yes, I know there are exceptions! I'm speaking in general terms). But right now this wanders dangerously into the realm of political philosophy. However, my point is that you cannot say that because one gender holds the purse strings, they have power. They don't - modern Western advertising is built on fear of being socially rejected and the need of public recognition. Many women are vulnerable to both. How is that a reflection of power?

This comment

A president's wife enjoys the same standard of living as her husband, without the daily misery that he endures.

rankles me. Take a look at the partners of the politicians. They do NOT sit at home eating bonbons. They campaign, they sit on boards, they work just as hard as their partners - except a) they have very little public sway than their marital counterparts and b) they rarely get paid. They are fully dependent on their partners. Fully.

I know each of these arguments can be trivially dismantled, but overall, does anyone think there's any truth to this question?

Mike

A good thesis is when each argument can hold on its own all the while still supporting other arguments. I'm sorry to have deconstruct many of them, but the reason I have done so is because the facts were either ambiguous or just so incredibly superficial, and because the whole argument is broad and pretty much all over the place.

In short, no. No one is 'worth' more than anyone else. The relationships and fluidity of societies around the world throughout time cannot be pinpointed to a single argument.

Are women worth more than men? No. Are men worth more than women? No. Gender biases and classification aside (how do you define a woman? a man? a child? etc), we are all interdependent on each other to survive. Biology has evolved to ensure that point. The rest is social and has little basis in hard biological fact.

Like Poly said above: how do measure, qualify AND quantify worth?

/showing off... I'm retreating now

 

[1sickbastard]

In evolutionary terms, women are more necessary than men in terms of insuring species survival.

Consider two different societies, each with 100 people.
One is 90% men, 10% women. The other has those ratios reversed. Which of those will be able to maintain a viable gene pool over three generations?

World-wide, the gender ratios are:
at birth: 1.07 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.79 male(s)/female
total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2011 est.)
(Source: CIA World Factbook)

Men are more expendable, overall, but to say one gender is 'worth' more than the other is, well, bullshit.

I guess this isn't really a how to, but I was looking for perfume the other day and noticed that a good woman's fragrance is $50 or so, whereas a man's is more like $25 or less. Same thing with clothes, I buy jeans for $20, hers are $40 or more. 16% of people in the military are women (so men are 5 times more expendable?) If you look at this list of countries by sex ratio and click on the "Over 65" sort, the warn-torn eastern european countries ended up with about 2 women for every man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

I remember in college that there were generally no parties with an equal number of guys and girls, and it created a lot of sexual tension. Usually there were at least 2 guys trying to meet each girl. Supposedly Ibiza, Spain has 3 women for every man, I can't imagine what that must be like.

Anyway, my theory is that when humans were evolving, men generally killed or banished each other until there were roughly 2 women for every man (a wife and a mistress) so there is something in our DNA that tends towards that arrangement. War torn countries are generally stable once that ratio is reached. If you look at middle eastern countries (and someday China) the ratio is more like 2 men for every woman and it creates tremendous suffering. A major conflict in the middle east or asia is all but certain at this point (perceived lack of money, power and sex always leads to war).

It looks to me like a woman is worth at least 2 men. This has a lot of ramifications in the real world. Imagine if I messaged 100 women and miraculously got 50 responses. The next day it would be 25, then 12, and eventually 0. On dating sites, I usually had to message at least 10 women to get 1 response. I heard an interesting quote once: "sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive". Women are probably worth even more than I'm proposing. Entire countries have gone to war over a single woman. Many men would give everything they own or have ever accomplished for the love of a woman. I don't think the reverse is true.

Even though the US is supposedly a male dominated society (Congress is only 17% female), I don't see that reflected in the real world. Most advertising seems to be targeted at women now. Take reality TV, say home improvement shows. Men generally work for women in one form or another. I think that women have a kind of shadow power, like the vice president, that's been active since time began. A president's wife enjoys the same standard of living as her husband, without the daily misery that he endures. In the end, a mother/sister/daughter/wife often has more say in a man's life than another man.

I know each of these arguments can be trivially dismantled, but overall, does anyone think there's any truth to this question?

Mike

 

[Christopher2012]

Awesome quote that I got from The Game of Thrones.

"There is only one true god, and it's between a woman's legs."

 

[Lord Pmann]

If the OP meant on the black market, then yeah, women are way more valuable.

 

[Eilan]

/showing off... I'm retreating now

 

[Christopher2012]

Breezey, I want to know what an ALL is. What's an ALL???????????????

 

[bailadora]

Breezey, I want to know what an ALL is. What's an ALL???????????????

Her all = her SO. Jeez. Context, people, context.

ETA: to echo Eilan:

 

[Christopher2012]

Her all = her SO. Jeez. Context people, context.

ETA: to echo Eilan:

So ALL is not an abbreviation? It's just the word all?

 

[bailadora]

So ALL is not an abbreviation? It's just the word all?

Pretty much. She refers to him as "her all". Extrapolate that to mean that he's everything to her.

I am more than willing to give everything I owe for my all. He knows it too.

 

[mike2010fc]

.....

 

[Eilan]

Is this a thinly-veiled "Nice guys finish last" thread?

 

[mike2010fc]

.....

 

[NeonKnickers]

People are people and all beautiful and equally worthy, somehow.

/hippielovegush

 

[emap]

Feminism has nothing to do with your not getting laid. Think about this, the last time you went to a club there was what 50 men and 30 women? Out of those 30 women 15 are just looking to decompress after work and might be open to some hot sex. 5 are just there to be a designated driver for friends and have a boyfriend or husband. The last 10 are there to get drunk and if they are lucky not wake up next to something that could be classified as the missing link.

Now think about this, those fifty men have already hit on or are building up a good enough load of liquid courage to hit on them. What that means is unless a woman just walks in the door, she doesn't want to hear the tired old phrase yet again. Just for clarification, just walked in doesn't want to hear it either.

What that means is instead of coming up with a stupid phrase or commenting on how it's too hot in here and you would like to take her elsewhere to cool down by stripping, just say hi. Get to know the woman and make her think you see her as being something besides a hot piece of ass. Trust me, every single line you can think of has been heard by her at least once. Unless today is her birthday and she is not officially able to go in a club, she has heard it all before. Be original, say hi.

 

[Lord Pmann]

People are people and all beautiful and equally worthy, somehow.

/hippielovegush

I think there is a Phish festival calling your name.

 

[NeonKnickers]

I think there is a Phish festival calling your name.

Let me grab my Toms and I'll be on my way!

 

[Christopher2012]

Man, and I thought my "She's way out of my league" thread was bad!

 

[Christopher2012]

Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes.

Hey, nice ass.