The way the term is used in redpill spaces basically sums up to a man who doesnt gets much attraction from women. If a man gets much attraction from women that makes him a high value man regardless of wether he contributes a lot to society or not, for example, a fuckboy who managed to sleep with a lot of women is higher value than the hard working college educated nice guy who only gets some "attraction" from women in their 30s after they stopped fooling around with fuckboys, cuz the fuckboy is treated as an object of lust and desire by many women.

In contrary, the way i have seen the term described by women usually means it is a guy who cheats, is emotionally unavaiable, is a womanizer, doesnt do chores, doesnt makes you gifts, doesnt worries about you, only sees you as a booty call etc. Problem is that even if those guys are low value they dont seem to be struggling as much as guys who are their total opposites, it seems like the things that make a man low value according to women dont mean much when it comes to baseline attraction.

For example those women who sleep with toxic unavaiable assholes in their 20s and then go for stable family commited nice guys in their 30s, according to them, the stable family commited nice guy is the higher value man, but no matter as hard is try to put myself in his shoes, i cant feel like im the higher value one in that situation, i feel like im the one getting the short end of the stick, i feel like im the one getting the hot potato, so even if that guy is the higher value one it really doesnt feels like it and redpill makes a lot of emphasis on that.

So what is low value man according to you? Do you agree with the redpill definition of a low value man?