All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
26:39
3093 An Introduction to Sexual Market Value | Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So to continue, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio, to continue with sexual market value and politics in particular, the question of sexual market value is also associated with the large variety of female-enhancing government programs, particularly for income, retirement, and health care, and so on, right?
So if you look at something like health care, women consume a lot more health care than men do because of, you know, mysterious Vulcan plumbing and also, of course, children and all that kind of stuff, right?
They just consume a lot of health care resources.
So having a wife is a cost, right?
So what can women do to bring down the cost of being a wife?
Well, of course, they can get socialized health care.
right?
They can get the government to pay.
For women's health care.
And of course, since women disproportionately use health care, it's a subsidy for women.
So, that's another reason why there's this driver.
And I'm not saying this is all conscious or anything, but these are the effects of that.
Now, pay equity.
Pay equity is another thing that artificially increases women's wages.
And by artificially increasing women's wages, what happens is the woman then comes into a relationship with more assets than she would otherwise have.
Because women, for a variety of reasons which I've gone into in a presentation on the myth of the wage gap, women are worth less economically on average than men.
And mostly because they take time out to have kids.
And at the extreme ends, of course, right?
I mean, Women are more clustered around the center of the bell curve in terms of intelligence, while men tend to also inhabit more extensively the two extremes of great intelligence and great, let's just say non-intelligence.
And so...
And women, you know, they say they earn, you know, 70 cents on the dollar or 80 cents on the dollar to men.
But, of course, that's highly pumped up by things like the pay equity programs and, of course...
Women want to maintain a monopoly on teaching, particularly the teaching of young children, because it's relatively lucrative, and you get a lot of benefits because it's government, and last but not least, of course, you get summers off.
Once you get into the swing of things, you don't have to come up with your own lesson plans and so on.
And this is another reason why a lot of teachers are very keen on government centralized lesson plans so that they don't have to come up with their own and very much against competition and so on.
So if you marry a teacher, well, what does she bring?
She brings a lot of benefits, like union benefits.
She brings a lot of benefits to the relationship.
She can take summers off, and that raises her sexual market value, right?
Because, you know, one of the things that is really a challenge for parents is the fact that the stupid school system Let's kids out at 3.30 when parents get off at 5, at least, and don't get home usually until 6.
This stupid system has also a couple of months off in the summer for children.
And a woman who is a teacher also gets that time off, which makes her much more valuable from a sexual market value.
And in this case, I'm talking about not just having sex with, but having kids with.
The woman becomes much...
So it's an artificial value for the woman.
And for six million reasons, teachers resist actually having a job in the summer.
But one of them, of course, is that it makes them much less valuable to date.
If they were paid more like daycare workers...
I'm not saying they should be.
I'm just saying that in a free market situation, if they were paid more like daycare workers and had to work during the summers, then quality men would not really want to marry them because they wouldn't bring enough to the table in terms of income and benefits and the convenience of having a parent off during the summers when the children are off during the summers.
They would lose a lot of sexual market value.
And that's a really, really important thing to understand.
The other thing, too, is that women, by living longer than men, they live in some places considerably longer than men, but in general, right, five to ten years longer than men, well, that takes away a man's spending power if the woman has been home taking care of the kids and the grandkids and doing great stuff in the community, you know, which is all very noble and respectful work.
But...
Women who live longer than men in a free society would require that men spend less in the present and instead save more for the future because they have to cover the 10 years or more, perhaps, that the woman is going to outlive the man.
And again, that lowers sexual market value, like marriage market value, parenthood market value.
I should probably differentiate these.
Here we're talking about parenthood market value.
Whereas if the government is going to take care of your wife when she gets old, then you don't have to save as much money to pay for the pension that she's going to need, to build up the extra capital that she's going to need.
Because you don't know.
It could be 20 years longer that she lives.
Let's just say she lives 10 years longer.
Well, she needs half a million dollars, just assuming she's going to get by on $50,000 a year.
She's going to need at least half a million dollars to cover that.
And, you know, it probably would be safer to give her a million dollars, right?
And then maybe she could, you know, get the 50K off 5% investments or something like that.
So that is a big challenge.
It's a big challenge.
So that's an extra half a million dollars or more that you're going to have to set aside if you're a husband to pay for your wife because she's going to outlive you.
Now, of course, you could instead get a much more expensive life insurance policy to pay for Your wife's retirement after you die.
But, you know, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
You're still going to have to pay.
You've got to pay somebody some time for all these kinds of things.
Whereas, of course, if the government takes over pensions, then women become more marriageable.
And if you look at all of this stuff, in general, certainly going into their early 30s, women want children more than men.
And women have so voted that That getting married to them is less costly up front, you know, in terms of, well, okay, if I marry you, then I have to pay for extra health care, lengthier retirement, kids' education.
It's like, well, you've got to pay for all these things anyway, so you might as well marry me.
Again, it raises the marriage market value of women.
Now, of course, the question is, what would happen if these subsidies weren't in place?
Well, what would happen is women would be a lot nicer.
Right?
Of course.
Of course women would be a lot nicer.
Because knowing the significant financial deficits that they would bring to a relationship, assuming that they wanted kids and wanted to stay home with the kids...
Assuming that they understood the significant negative The economics they were bringing to the relationship, they would make up for it by being super helpful and super nice.
In the same way that the DMV has your business whether you like it or not, and they don't have to be good, and they don't have to care, and they don't have to have excellent customer service, and they don't have to be efficient, and so on.
I mean, a few of them will be, just like a few wives will be wonderful no matter what, but the tendency will be against that.
When there's an incoerced monopoly, then...
Customer service goes down and you really need to look at marriage as a business wherein two people are incorporated together and they are each other's supplier and customer.
That's the way to look at it.
To take the sort of heady sexual frisson out of the mix and to de-hormonize it a bit.
Take the hormones out of the equation a little bit.
You need to look at it as two people are going to incorporate to create their parent company, creating a child company, and it's a mix of assets, and both are supplying services to each other.
Now, all businesses that are heavily subsidized...
End up providing less value to their customers and focus more on their relationship with the subsidizer, right?
That is natural in all businesses, and the same thing is true for women as a whole, which is why women tend to trend democrat, particularly single women, and tend to focus more on their relationship with the government than they do On their relationship with the husband, because the husband can leave them, but the government cannot.
So, these are all really important things to understand when it comes to, you know, why do women vote the way they do, and why have women found the...
How do they, so to speak, dare to be so contemptuous and dismissive and vicious towards men?
Well, because...
Because they're married to the government, they just have scornful affairs with men.
Not lusty affairs, just affairs of necessity.
And so, why can they be mean?
Because they don't have to be nice, right?
I mean, it's the old thing, like if a policeman is mean, you have very little recourse.
And if a border agent is mean, you have very little recourse.
And if a postman is mean, you have very little resource.
If your child's teacher is mean...
Very little resource.
There's no freedom, there's no voluntarism, and so the first thing that goes out the window is basic human politeness and consideration.
And it's not like the moment it happens, everyone becomes mean.
It's just that as that environment spreads and festers, the people who are attracted to that are the people who are not good at being nice, right?
If you're not good at being nice, the market will punish you.
Like, if you're a surly waiter in a highly competitive environment, the market will fire your ass, right?
Which is actually the healthiest thing that could happen.
But...
That aspect of sexual market value wherein women attempt to get the government to subsidize the costs of marrying them and raising children with them so that A, it appears more valuable to marry them and B, they don't have to do all the difficult work of actually being nice and compromising and so on.
Well, that has raised the sort of narcissism and vanity and entitlement and greed and intransigence and bullying and so on of women to the point where, well, men are opting out.
They're going galt on the whole institution of marriage.
So that's some ways to sort of understand the approach.
And the fact that women turn to manipulation in the political context To gain value is inevitable.
Like, I did this podcast earlier today, and I'm sort of doing this second part now.
In the interim, I picked up my mail, and there was an ad for some sort of makeup that had been stuffed into the mail slot.
Stuffed into the mail slot.
And on it, I saw, you know, there's this picture of these gorgeous women, perfectly made up and airbrushed and so on.
It just clicked, and it's not a new insight or a particularly powerful insight, but it's a relevant insight, and I'll take that.
It clicked in that women are trying to control the world by controlling men.
And again, not all women, blah, blah, blah, right?
This is just general tendencies and self-interest in a corrupt environment.
It's not like women are bad, it's just that in the same way that when men are vastly outnumbered by women, they tend to become cads when women gain...
Excessive power over men.
They tend to become, you know, shrews and they tend to attempt to make up for their lack of personal qualities by exaggerated sexual signaling in the form of makeup and so on.
And, yeah, I mean, put on makeup and expect the cow to milk itself and put a glass of milk on your table.
Makeup isn't going to do that, right?
A cow might lick it off, but it's really not going to give much of a cow's butt one way or the other.
But if you put on makeup and a man gets besotted with you, then he will go and get you milk and put it on the table, right?
So it's a way of manipulating the world through a third-party robot called male lust.
Right?
I don't know how to go out into the world and get things done, but I can crank the dumb stick of the giant besotted man robot and he will do things for me.
And so, as I saw a sign, I mentioned this in the show before, as I saw a sign in a mall, in a makeup store, big sign says, tools of the trade.
Tools of the trade.
Rather than add personal value through virtue, through hard work, through commitment, through rubbing the man's foot when he's had a feat, when he's had a tough day, instead I'm going to provoke extra lust in him so that his hormones will rush in to fill the gap of my own personal indifference or malevolence or lack of value.
And That is important to understand, that the voting patterns and the makeup and all of that, and the leftism, the socialism, the getting the government to pay for women's stuff, that's all about lowering the The requirement for personal quality and substituting government power for personal qualities.
And it is a devil's bargain.
Now, high-quality women don't like it.
This is all low-quality woman stuff, right?
And high-quality women don't like it, which is why high-quality women who stay home with their kids and who are married to high-quality men tend to vote to the right, tend to vote for, like, get your hands out of my wallet, trailer vixen.
Or at least get your hands out of my husband's wallet.
And they have a man to provide for them.
And so the government is their enemy.
If you can't keep a man, you need the government.
If you can keep a man, the government is your enemy.
Because the government is not taking from quality men and giving to your sorry trailer park ass.
The government...
Is taking from your husband's wallet and giving it to women whose kids bully your kids, right?
I mean, it's a really terrible bargain for high-quality women to vote in that direction.
So, that helps to understand that low-quality people want to reduce competition.
Tonya Harding gets a guy to take a bat to Nancy Kerrigan's legs.
These are two skaters.
And low-quality people dislike competition because, guess what?
They lose.
Low-quality women, when faced with competition for alpha males with high-quality women, have one of two choices.
Three choices, I guess.
They can either A, reduce the value of the alpha male, or B, increase the value of The trash woman, or they can see attempts to raise their sexual market value to the point where the alpha male is not only going to want to have sex with them, but is also going to want to marry them and stay with them and love them until the day they die.
Now, lowering the value of the alpha male in his own mind is part of, you know, feminism's goal, right?
Feminism is, one of the things that it does is, by constantly harping on about how terrible men are, attempts to lower the self-confidence.
Of men.
Now, lowering the self-confidence of men serves to make them more susceptible to exploitation by low-quality women.
I mean, this is all pick-up artist technique, right?
You give the sort of friendly insult to a woman, you attempt to exploit her insecurities, and through that process, through exploiting her insecurities, you get to get into her pants and so on, right?
Or you'll pretend to be, you know, yes, this is my Ferrari, he said, leaning on some, right?
Like Joey with the...
The box is the pretend Ferrari in Friends, right?
You attempt to pretend that you're an alpha or you attempt to lower the woman's self-esteem and, you know, in a playful way insult her so that you can get into her pants.
And, you know, one of the purposes of feminism, which generally appeals to I'm not talking about feminist leaders, right?
I mean, I'm talking about the followers, right?
But...
So, yeah, you lower the self-esteem of men and they become easier to control and manipulate and thus more available to lower quality women.
And the second thing, of course, you can do is to raise the sexual market value of lower quality women, which is to have...
It's to have the costs of them diminished, right?
And, you know, the costs of getting involved with them diminish.
And that's, you know, all of the subsidies and free government schools, free daycare, free healthcare, free, you know, you name it, right?
And old age pensions and so on, which disproportionately benefit women relative to men.
And men, of course, pay disproportionately into the system.
It's just another scam.
Because the alternative, which is to say, well, I'm kind of a low-quality woman, so the best thing for me to do is to attempt to raise my sexual market value by becoming a much better person, becoming nice, becoming kind, becoming helpful.
Becoming a great cook, becoming an excellent homekeeper, studying up on how to be a great mother, and being there for your man, and helping to support him, and reading up on his business, and doing all of that stuff.
And please understand, I'm not saying, of course, that men should not be equally devoted to women.
I am.
But I'm just talking, we'll get to sexual market value for men, you know, in a bit.
But we're just talking about women.
We're talking about marriage and old age and so on, the general pattern.
I do want to talk about divorce briefly, and then in the next show we'll talk about sexual market value for men.
But this approach...
It's low-rent women against high-quality women in the world, right?
This idea that there's some sort of sisterhood is ridiculous.
The high-quality women are all trying to keep their slags out of their husband's wallet, and the low-quality women are all trying to entice higher-quality men that they would otherwise be able to get by having the government subsidize the costs of doing genetic business with them, so to speak.
And all of that is...
Really important to understand.
This stuff is, you know, the genes that manipulate to their own advantage are the genes that really flourish in this world, that do really well in this world.
And those that don't, well, they've died off a long time ago.
And this manipulation of sexual market value is really, really important and can take a wide variety of approaches.
It doesn't always have to do with, you know, it's fighting like a spy rather than fighting like a soldier, right?
I mean, in, I think it's Burn Notice, there is, I mentioned this in the show before, right, there's a show where the lead guy is fighting like a spy, which is all about trickery and sub-diffusion and so on.
And when you look at a particular policy, when you look at that which is proposed, the important thing, I think, is to look at Whose sexual market value does it affect?
If you look at something like Bernie Sanders' free tuition, whose sexual market value does that affect?
Well, what it does is it allows women to get a degree.
And women tend to go for non-economically productive degrees.
Let's face it, not a lot of women graduating as computer scientists or oil engineers and so on.
They're there, but it's not exactly the norm.
So women want a degree because a degree is going to give them access to higher quality men, both in school and after school in the work environment.
They're not going to end up working As a receptionist at a auto dealership.
A receptionist at a repair dealership.
A little higher end.
So, women want to go and get a degree to enhance their sexual market value.
Unfortunately, if a woman goes and gets some bullshit basket-weaving course degree and graduates with $25,000 in debt, well, her sexual market value has gone down, right?
I have a degree It's really great if you don't end up in debt because you look smart.
I have a degree that has no economic value and I'm heavily in debt.
Makes you look retarded.
Like, this makes you look like an idiot.
Like, I got an undergraduate degree in women's studies, I'm $30,000 in debt and I have no job prospects.
Would you like to marry me?
Well, no.
In fact, like, your stunning lack of foresight is astonishing, right?
And this, you know, debt is the enemy of sexual market value for women.
It can be the friend of sexual market value for men because men, when there's a shortage of women, men go more into debt to try and impress the women with...
Buying them presents or taking them out on expensive dates or whatever.
You don't end up with this dorm-cest and sweat-pant romance that goes on in dorms where guys who are outnumbered by women barely lift a finger to woo women.
And so if you just look at something as simple as free tuition, well, why would free tuition be appealing?
I mean, if you're in a very economically productive degree, you kind of don't want Free tuition.
Because free tuition is going to flood the market and drive down wages.
You want there to be a barrier to entry.
But if you're in some retarded degree that's never going to make you a dime, then you want free tuition because then you get access to the higher quality men, you get access to the prestige sexual market value of having a degree without the attendant sexual market value destroying debt that comes along with it.
And so, and again, I'm not just saying, it's not just women, right?
But, you know, it's a lot to do with women.
Because in general, men will take more productive degrees.
Not always, of course, but in general.
And it's not a huge, right?
So when Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton come along and say, well, the average student is graduating significantly in debt and has little hope of paying, well, that is, God, terrible sexual market value.
And by offering free tuition or a forgiveness of debt, what they're offering, they're not talking to the brain.
They're talking to the genes.
They're talking to the loins.
They're talking to the next generation.
They're talking to sexual market value.
And if you look at all of this, we're going to give women free health care.
Well, that's speaking to sexual market value.
I'm going to take away one of the barriers that men have to marrying you, which is the cost of your health care.
So, want to vote for me?
I'm going to increase your sexual market value, or in this case, your marriage market value.
And when someone comes along and says, hey, I'd really like to...
Give you free, count them free, abortions, right?
Well, they are increasing the sexual market value of women.
Because, of course, if women get pregnant and the guy has to spring for an abortion, then it's pretty expensive to go have sex with these women, right?
And so all of this stuff, when you look at it, you know, if you look at it in the context of sexual market value, I think you'll find that it's a pretty fertile ground.
Does it explain everything?
It's not bad for a lot of it, right?
You know, obviously there's complexities and stuff that doesn't fall into it.
And we'll get into the sexual market value subsidy of men, you know, called corporate favoritism and in particular the military in a sec.
But as always, if you find this stuff useful, freedomandradio.com slash donate.
Thank you so much for listening.
▲
Export Selection