A few days ago there was a post in the parent sub featuring a video of a woman comparing herself to a $20 bill. The link is here. The point she was trying to make was that a bill retains its face value even if it gets crumpled because it has inherent value, and that women are the same.

This is hamstering at its finest: she feels that a woman's mate value is undiminished no matter what she does because that value is inherent. Like a $20 bill, her "face value" exists independent of whether she is crumpled up in the bottom of the lint catcher or freshly-minted. It's worth pointing out that a $20 bill only has 20 times the value of a $1 bill because we have legal tender laws that make it so. The bill itself is just a scrap of paper with little or no inherent value: it has assigned value because the people with legal authority to initiate force have declared it to be so. If not for legal tender laws a $20 bill would hold no value at all other than as a means to start a fire, and in that case it would have no more value than a $1 bill.

She also misapplies the principle that all humans have inherent value. Never mind that that's a Judeo-Christian paradigm (man made in the image of his Creator) that she rejects... it doesn't apply here anyway. While a janitor has as much inherent value as a person as a top-notch engineer, the engineer has a much higher employee value to an engineering firm, and his pay will reflect that. Likewise, while a woman whose sexuality and femininity have been "crumpled" by years of riding the carousel has the standard-issue value as a human being, she has greatly diminished her employee value as a candidate for the position of WIFE.

But feminists and their sympathizers don't like that: they think it's acceptable for a woman to have sex with other men before marriage. Many go so far as to declare that the number of those men is utterly irrelevant no matter how high it is. Some guys even say they want their future wife to "know what she's doing in bed" before marriage, as if the experience will enhance her mate value rather than diminish it... and as if they don't have the rest of their lives to figure out what goes where.

Hint: remember that "Insert Tab A into Slot B" stuff you did with cardboard in grade school? The same principle applies. The number of variations is fairly limited unless one (or both) of you is a power-lifter, endurance athlete, or contortionist.

But since talking about how promiscuity diminishes a woman's mate value is now "slut shaming" (the worstest thing that can ever be uttered, you man-splaining incel, you), feminists have decided that they should be able to declare that a woman's mate value remains the same no matter how much damage she does to herself. What they seek to do is to create a de facto legal tender law for the mating market that declares that a woman's mate value is inherent in her womanhood rather than subject to being diminished by her condition (the way we assign value to literally everything else). We often use the "used car versus new car" analogy to describe women who demand "top dollar" men while offering little in return, and feminists express outrage at the comparison, yet the idea put forth in the video - as well as the reality that most women agree with it (at least with regard to herself) - is even more objectifying. This goes beyond "women as objects of value" all the way to "women as currency"... and fiat currency at that.

Needless to say, while they hate the idea of women being compared to cars (whose value diminishes with age and mileage), they have no problem abandoning the "legal tender" principle when it comes to men. The same women who demand that men treat all women with respect and refrain from making value judgements based on a woman's promiscuity (edit: or obesity, STDs, bastard children, debt, tattoos,...) jump at the chance to tell men that they aren't making the grade because of their actions and/or inactions.

Of course the only reason we don't use $20 bills to start fires is because we all have to live with legal tender laws whether we like it or not. Such is not the case in the mating market: a man gets to reject women whose mate value is below what he's willing to accept in exchange for his time/money/affection, and no amount of demanding that men pretend that a woman's mate value exists independent of her condition is going to negate that.

Since this sub is called "Where All The Good Men Are" I will point out that the Good MenTM are putting women in the balance based on their suitability rather than what feminists insists is their face value - legal tender laws that assign great value to common things may work with consumers who have no say in the matter, but men retain their sovereignty and are not bound by such nonsense in the mating market.