I want you to imagine having no sexual attraction to women, or, perhaps, remember (such as when you were a young boy). Now I want you to really get into that head-space, inhabit it for awhile, walk around, look at things in this new light. Look to the memory of a beer commercial with some big chest-lumped women, imagine how strange and out of place they are, now that you are not sexually attracted to women... why are the advertisers spending so much time of this multi-million-dollar-superbowl-running commercial on 10 seconds of bouncing chest fat?

Continue looking around your memories in this new light. Remember a few of those times that you did something for a woman you were the tiniest bit attracted to, and how that affected your thinking. Think back, now, in the new light. Perhaps, even to make it easier, imagine that what was once an attractive woman was, instead, her similar-looking brother. You can blur your eyes a bit and imagine how she might have looked if she had been born a man from the same parents. Now that this memory-woman is no longer a woman to whom you were attracted – does going out of your way, for her, make sense now? Would you have behaved similarly toward her brother, all other things being equal?

Continue looking around you at a world where women have no sexual power. Perhaps you've learned some routine openers, pick-up lines, and ice-breakers, or even spent numerous evenings practicing game. Imagine how many hours you've logged in the pursuit of women. How many days of your life, up to this point, have you spent trying to sleep with, and sleeping with, women? If you could give it a percentage number of your wakeful life that has been devoted (either directly or indirectly) toward women, what would that number be? 5%? 10%? 20%? 40%? 60%?

When you look back at your motivations for things (perhaps work or education), how much of it was devoted to women by proxy? Was that car really for you, or was some portion of it intended for the attraction of women? Was that apartment really necessary for your needs, or was some of it intended as a statement toward women you ultimately wanted to have sex with? How much of your life, before looking at it in a new light, was essential for you and only you, and not for women?

Perhaps there was a moment in your life when you can remember offering a woman something very substantial, such as an expensive gift, or even a marriage proposal (the gift of yourself and your commitment, a very substantial offer, indeed). Now, imagining that the woman was unattractive to you, as all women are in this thought experiment, would you have still made the offer? Even if it were the offer of sex, with the unknowns accompanying it (such as the risk of pregnancy, or contracting an incurable sexually transmitted disease), would you still make the offer had you not found women attractive?

It soon becomes apparent that, had you treated women as you had treated men, that you would have only done for women things out of common respect, or as a response to a woman's virtue and character.

Have women been the ones of high moral character in your life? If their value were independent of their physical attractiveness, would you still have valued them as highly? Have women, on the whole, been the preferable group based on virtue alone? Would you hang out with a woman if she was unattractive and morally repugnant?

People often advocate for egalitarian behavior, ostensibly feminism is about equality for women. In a pure meritocracy, where physical attractiveness due to fertility never played a role, would women have nearly as much opportunity? Would women have as many resources? Or favor given them?

Would you help her with her homework if she behaved the exact same way, but was, instead, a man?

Feminists often complain about sexism without understanding heterosexual male motivations to their fullest extent. Indeed there is sexism, however, it is a sexism which makes large allowances for women (quite antithetical to a meritocracy or equal-opportunity society).

Men who cannot imagine women in a new light of neutral physical attraction are, indeed, sexist. And that benefits women at the expense of men, as a function of the magnitude of bias that a man has toward the physical attraction and fertility markers of woman kind. Indeed many feminists are conventionally unattractive and see the world as unfair, thus. And so they try to remedy the perceived injustice without understanding the male psychology that drives it. This, ultimately, backfires because even minor fertility signaling attracts male resources, and so even the ugliest feminist loses male favor. The idea of women is cheapened.

So, let us take this cheapening to its logical conclusion; women have no inherent value. The only value a woman has is her character. The only value anyone has is their character.

The most vile fat-acceptance feminist will have nothing to gentle her condition, she will be treated as the bitter misanthrope that she is. Based on their character alone, they are unattractive. Forget about the physical, or even the mind/body connection which seeps through to show hints of what lies inside; only look at them in this new light - that their female condition is neutral, and their character is all that matters. Would they be so ugly?

It reminds me of the movie Shallow Hal, and the ugly woman, Tanya (the "old" nurse and smoker who was a gold digger... there was only one gold digger in the entire movie and of all of the women Hal met in the film who was made uglier by looking at her character. Just one, no other people were made uglier by looking past their physical appearance).