On Value and the Value of Women
A philosophical argument that value isn't intrinsic: it exists only in the eyes of someone who finds a use or meaning in something. It's written in response to the expectation that people should be valued simply for who they are.
The stone parable
A stone has no value to itself; it isn't conscious. A man who needs to build a shelter finds it valuable. A second man who already has a home doesn't. Neither has changed what the stone "is". Value depends on who's looking and what they need. A starving man treasures a single grape; a glutton ignores a bowlful.
The same applies to people. A builder values a strong labourer for his project more than someone who can't lift stones. That doesn't mean the second person has no value to himself. Everyone has intrinsic value to themselves, because only through existing can they experience anything. But nobody holds automatic value in the eyes of strangers.
The argument
- Ask yourself: what makes you think strangers should value you if you haven't offered them anything?
- Men learn early that to be valued they must bring value: skills, trades, strength, personality.
- The author argues many women are told they are intrinsically valuable just for being women, and that much of the attention they receive simply reflects how strongly men are wired to pursue sex.
- His conclusion: women can certainly bring great value, through character, intelligence, warmth and skills, but being a woman alone shouldn't earn it. "If you want to be valued by us, do it the same way we do."
See also
Summary of a forum post originally shared on Reddit's r/TheRedPill.
This section collects Red Pill writing for discussion; inclusion isn't endorsement.