On valuing women

I think my favorite response to the now-notorious Forbes article has to be the following one. Apparently the writer doesn’t realize the irony of how she is making a stronger case against men marrying ANY woman, than Mr. Noer was against career women.

No more sex for Noer. I wish there was a website where you could warn other women to keep away from men like Michael Noer. If this article gets around he may never have sex again, which would be for the best because he strikes me as someone who doesn’t really value women.

Now, while I have been accused of hating women, I have never been accused of not valuing them. And in fact, as an economics major, I daresay I can do it rather more precisely than most. Given the amount of financial information related to the subject available on the Internet, the valuation is pretty straightforward.

The price of a woman’s sexual favors ranges from approximately $3.75/hour at the very low end to an average of $1,500/hour at the extreme high end. I’d estimate that the average female value works out to around $50 per hour for all ages, sizes and levels of attractiveness, enthusiasm and skill, so given that the average sexual encounter lasts 28 minutes and taking into account that Americans average 58 such encounters per year, the sexual worth of average American woman is $1,353.33 per annum.

Not a lot of money, is it. That’s why using sex as a weapon is such a prodigiously stupid idea, as sex is simply not a very powerful weapon for the average woman. It does work for some fortunate women of high sexual value, of course; one can work out the specific sexual value of any individual woman according to the following formula:

P = price per hour. Ranges from $3.75 (emaciated crack whore) to $1,500 (Marissa Miller in a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders outfit tuned up with Dom and a candlelight dinner overlooking the Arno).
E = length of average encounter in minutes
N = number of monthly encounters

Therefore, SVW = (P*(E/60)*(N*12). Anything over $10,000/year is quite good, only the financial elite, the egregiously handsome or the famous and powerful can expect to regularly obtain the favors of women in the $50,000+ category.

Think it through, girls

From the Forbes comments:

A man wrote:
“With one exception, men can accomplish anything that we think is important all by ourselves. Explore, build empires, create new industries, invent, discover, make money–all these things come naturally to us. We don’t need your help. But the one thing we can’t do by ourselves, and it’s the thing most men want more than anything else, is to have a family and play a prominent role in raising our children.

A feminist responds:
This is true. And we women have caught on to you: note the plummeting birth rates everywhere where women have reproductive choice and access to education. Mail order brides and third world recruiting notwithstanding, ultimately it’s going to catch up to you, because the fact is we shouldn’t have to choose between bread and water, so ultimately we don’t. When the birth rate plummets and population growth turns negative, all of a sudden the powers that be start talking about family friendly policies and flex time.

To sum up: I’m voting with my uterus, and so (apparently) are quite a few of my sisters. Good job, men: your refusal to broke real compromise and share has had spectacular results in the form of no babies for you! My suggestion is that you suck it up and start making equal contribution by sacrificing career advancement and glory to the rearing of your ever-so-precious children.

Now, if one looks at the grand scope of human history, which is more likely. That the elite, (or more likely, some forward-thinking charismatic individual capable of seducing the elite), will consider the dying society situation posited by the feminist and:

a) attempt to convince women to again resume their child-bearing responsibilities through forcing men to somehow make it easier for women to have both the metaphorical bread and water.

b) strip women of the so-called “rights” they have only ever held in Western society, and which have been revealed to be of completely disastrous effect in less than fifty years.

The answer, of course, is (b). Moreover, the true alternative is not (a), the success of which is wildly unlikely, but (c), societal collapse before an energetic and more propagation-friendly culture. The jury is still out as to whether (a) or (c) will win out, in either case, feminism spells not only its own death, but also the death of Western-style liberal quasi-democracy.

See Turkey, Algeria and Russia for details….

The mysterious case of the missing Forbes article

The Fraters Libertas refer to something that somehow appears to have vanished:

Don’t marry a career-oriented dame. Sounds like good advice to me. Who wants to put up with all the aggravation, self-centeredness, pantsuits, powerpoint presentations and general added marital stress? But who is giving such sage advice to non-married men? Vox Day? Some loudmouth conservative like ol’ JB? Nope, Forbes magazine:

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage.

Shocking. Good thing we have these social scientists doing these important studies. Otherwise how would we know such common sense things like don’t marry a career gal?

While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women–even those with a “feminist” outlook–are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

JB adds:

Don’t miss hitting the comments section. I haven’t laughed this much in ages!

Strangely, the article which appears to have generated the predictable rush of hysterical career women demonstrating how reasonable and open-minded they are by shrieking for jihad against Forbes, has vanished from the Internet…. UPDATE: It is back up, but now paired with a hastily prepared “rebuttal” written by a woman whose conclusion is: “So guys, if you’re game for an exciting life, go ahead and marry a professional gal.” Of course, by “exciting life” she means “antagonistic, adultery- and divorce-filled life without children, at least children you can see more than one weekend a month”. And as we have all learned to expect of a female attempt at a rebuttal, she answers Noel’s general statistical points with personally anecdotal evidence. For the love of all that’s bone-dry and dull, someone needs to tell that brilliant career woman that when it comes to statistics and probabilities, the personal isn’t political, it is completely irrelevant!

UPDATE 2: Amynda points out that the slide show with accompanying text is still missing and helpfully posts it on Forbes behalf. Why any of this should upset feminists who believe that marriage is inherently oppressive remains a mystery….

In any event, Michael Noel’s conclusion is absolutely true, which is why it reduces the usual suspects to slavering madness. If you want a happy marriage, don’t even think about marrying a career woman. A woman who declares herself a career woman is openly declaring that her career is more important than any boyfriend, husband or children, so unless you intend to a) live off her, or, b) enjoy playing third fiddle to Powerpoint demonstrations, don’t even consider dating one. There are much better women out there.