Someone could make a case for why it's hypocritical to discriminate against women when we don't like to be discriminated by them.
My proposition is as follows: we discriminate based on values, whereas women discriminate solely based on looks.
For example, women tend to ignore hardworking, law-abiding unattractive men for attractive criminals with psychopathic personality traits, as several studies have shown. In this case, discriminating against women's sexual preference for attractive criminals is good because it benefits society. This discrimination serves as a positive reinforcement for women to behave decently.
Women will spend a decade or so in the universities and in the workforce should they have the opportunity to study and to work. However, by doing so they are significantly reducing their chances of becoming mothers—and giving birth to healthy children for that matter. As birth rates are important to society, discriminating against women who prioritize work and study over family is good because it benefits society in the long run. We want more housewives and babies, not more mediocre psychologists and sociologists.
On the other hand, women reject men based on short stature and subpar looks—this discrimination is solely based on physical appearance, which in itself has little to no value to society. Women might be interested in attractive traits that are genetically valuable, but we have to ask ourselves: if by seeking good genes women are going to genocide 1/3 or more of the male population, is it beneficial to society that we just allow them to select any man they see fit?
Even if women's sexuality is entirely based on a search for good genes, that cannot be beneficial to society in the long run because what women interpret as good genes represent about 20% or less of the male population, which means 80% of men who sustain civilization are going to have only one child or none. With birth rates so low, society would collapse. So not even their Chad sons are going to benefit from their mother's search for good genes in the long run. Therefore, discriminating against women's sexuality is good because it benefits society.
That's the difference between us and them: we discriminate based on values, not solely based on looks. Something is not morally correct just because it's natural, as I mentioned in another thread. Lookism is natural, but allowing women to discriminate against 80% of men for the remaining 20% will eventually destroy society.
Involuntary celibates usually don't mind short women or unattractive women, as being short or unattractive in itself is not valuable nor harmful to society; on the other hand, involuntary celibates do mind promiscuous women and so-called "independent" women because their actions are clearly harmful to society.
Men want to remove women's rights based on their behavior; women want to remove men's right to reproduce solely based on their lack of physical attractiveness. As a society, we should ask ourselves: which one is better in the long run?
My proposition is as follows: we discriminate based on values, whereas women discriminate solely based on looks.
For example, women tend to ignore hardworking, law-abiding unattractive men for attractive criminals with psychopathic personality traits, as several studies have shown. In this case, discriminating against women's sexual preference for attractive criminals is good because it benefits society. This discrimination serves as a positive reinforcement for women to behave decently.
Women will spend a decade or so in the universities and in the workforce should they have the opportunity to study and to work. However, by doing so they are significantly reducing their chances of becoming mothers—and giving birth to healthy children for that matter. As birth rates are important to society, discriminating against women who prioritize work and study over family is good because it benefits society in the long run. We want more housewives and babies, not more mediocre psychologists and sociologists.
On the other hand, women reject men based on short stature and subpar looks—this discrimination is solely based on physical appearance, which in itself has little to no value to society. Women might be interested in attractive traits that are genetically valuable, but we have to ask ourselves: if by seeking good genes women are going to genocide 1/3 or more of the male population, is it beneficial to society that we just allow them to select any man they see fit?
Even if women's sexuality is entirely based on a search for good genes, that cannot be beneficial to society in the long run because what women interpret as good genes represent about 20% or less of the male population, which means 80% of men who sustain civilization are going to have only one child or none. With birth rates so low, society would collapse. So not even their Chad sons are going to benefit from their mother's search for good genes in the long run. Therefore, discriminating against women's sexuality is good because it benefits society.
That's the difference between us and them: we discriminate based on values, not solely based on looks. Something is not morally correct just because it's natural, as I mentioned in another thread. Lookism is natural, but allowing women to discriminate against 80% of men for the remaining 20% will eventually destroy society.
Involuntary celibates usually don't mind short women or unattractive women, as being short or unattractive in itself is not valuable nor harmful to society; on the other hand, involuntary celibates do mind promiscuous women and so-called "independent" women because their actions are clearly harmful to society.
Men want to remove women's rights based on their behavior; women want to remove men's right to reproduce solely based on their lack of physical attractiveness. As a society, we should ask ourselves: which one is better in the long run?
