Why Women Deserve Less

Think of a modern relationship as a company, with each partner acting as a co-founder. Standard business practice dictates that equity, or ownership, is awarded based on the value and risk each founder contributes. A founder who mortgages their house, works 100-hour weeks, and brings a revolutionary patent to the table rightfully expects a larger share than a co-founder who contributes a nice logo and works part-time. To suggest they deserve equal equity, regardless of their vastly different inputs and risks, would be seen as absurd in any boardroom. It would bankrupt the company.

Yet, when it comes to the high-stakes venture of romantic relationships and marriage, this fundamental principle of value-for-value is often discarded. A silent assumption takes its place: that equal partnership means equal outcomes, regardless of unequal contributions. This is the financial and emotional equivalent of giving a part-time logo designer 50% of the company. Myron Gaines, a former federal agent turned entrepreneur and one of the most polarizing voices in the modern dating landscape, saw this discrepancy as the root cause of widespread relational collapse. After years of observing these dynamics in his own life and coaching thousands of men, he wrote 'Why Women Deserve Less' as a stark, provocative audit of the modern relationship contract, arguing that applying basic principles of value and risk is the only path to a stable, functional, and mutually respectful partnership.

Module 1: The New Social Contract and Its Failure

We begin with a core premise that reframes the entire discussion about modern relationships. The author argues that society has moved from an "Old Contract" to a "New Contract" between men and women, and understanding this shift is critical. The Old Contract was a straightforward, if unromantic, transaction. Men provided resources and protection. In return, women provided sex, companionship, and children. It was the engine of family formation and, by extension, civilization.

The New Contract, heralded by slogans like "I don't need a man," declared this arrangement obsolete. Fueled by the Industrial Revolution, which created jobs women could perform, and modern capitalism, which generated enough wealth for robust welfare states, women achieved financial independence. They no longer needed a man for survival. The expectation was a utopia. Free from dependency, men and women would choose each other based on pure love and compatibility, leading to stronger, happier relationships.

But here's the twist. The author argues this new utopia never arrived. The New Social Contract has been a catastrophic failure, leading to more hostility and less connection. Instead of a golden age of relationships, we see record-low marriage rates, high divorce rates, and a "sex recession." Men and women report dating less and experiencing more frustration when they do. The author points to a culture of complaint, where concepts like "toxic masculinity" and "mansplaining" create an environment of antagonism. This massive gap between the promised outcome and the grim reality suggests a fundamental flaw in the new contract's assumptions. It’s like designing a rocket to go to the moon and having it explode on the launchpad. Something is deeply wrong with the core design.

So what went wrong? The author claims that one party didn't fully uphold their end of the bargain. Despite declaring independence, women as a group remain economically dependent on men and the state. Gaines supports this with controversial claims. He points to data showing men dominate society's most essential, physically demanding jobs—the plumbers, electricians, and construction workers who keep the lights on. He argues men work more hours, take less time off, and are the primary taxpayers funding the very welfare programs that offer women a safety net. For example, he cites a New Zealand study suggesting the average woman is a net economic drain over her lifetime, while the average man is a net contributor. This dependency, he argues, creates a critical imbalance in the "new contract" of equals.

This leads to a difficult conclusion for men operating in good faith. Men must recognize that their biological drive for a family, shaped by the Old Contract, is now a liability under the New Contract. A healthy man’s innate desire for a wife, children, and a stable home is a powerful motivator. But blindly pursuing it with old-world tactics in a new-world environment leads directly to the tragic fates of "Tom, Dick, and Harry." The challenge is to pursue those ancient goals with a modern, strategic mindset. The author warns that denying your own nature leads to a miserable, unfulfilled life. You have to see the world as it is, not as you wish it were.