A good comeback for the "Women lose reproductive value as they age"

"Nope. A woman’s «  job » evolutionarily speaking is not to get married and have kids. Her "role" is to have kids, but only with men with matable traits. Traits that are positive that get passed onto the next generation in order to respect the ecosystem.

Not all males deserve to reproduce. So if 90% of males are destructive,hateful, and incompetent, it is of natures law to wipe their bloodlines the fu&k out."

_______________________________________________

Explanation: nature is a self regulating system, but also ruthless when it comes to selecting the individuals who will be picked based on how much nature/the planet benefits from them.

It is simple: animal/plants individuals with good traits contribute positively to the perpetuation and growth of the ecosystem. Animal/plants individuals with bad traits are a threat to nature and therefore deserve to be destroyed.

Before the patriarchy, women exerted their rightful privilege to only mate with men with traits that women instictively know that they contribute positively to the planet.

In the Patriarchy, the roles were reversed, and 1000s of years later, the humanity is currently witnessing a frightening overload of mediocre unmatable scrotes , who were the result of 100000s of generations of scrotes ancestors who artificially had access to women's bodies (be in via r$pe,coersion,indocreination....)

The planet is getting ruined year after year and the ecosystem is reaching a point of no return because undeserving cell bags feel entitled to reproduce just for existing.

Which is why women have the right AND privilege to be ruthlessly selective just as much as mother nature.

Our reproductive period is restricted from puberty until menopause, and it is ,from evolutionary perspective, a very good reason:

--The planet is not meant to be populated by 8 billion humans.--

The strength in humanity doesn't come from quantity but from quality.