@FLK, Women/girls have almost always been the 'limiting factor' of reproduction in general anyway even before it gets to the point she has intercourse with a male, but even then when/if she does, there's always still the chance she won't be able to get impregnated even if she wants to be.

The fact they are the limiting factor of reproduction is just an evolutionary behavioural trait that evolved that way on their native biological nature, i.e., every female is limited in the sense their reproductive ability is a timed opportunity, because obviously even when they do get pregnant, the cost of this means she needs to dedicate 9 months of her life (and a good few years after) towards the interests of the baby, 9 months is the best part of a year, so it's not like a female can just mass produce babies on the regular overnight, a good amount of that time takes real long term investment and commitment.

Con't 2: So this is why women tend to be more choosy on who they sleep with or are intimate with, seeing it as a big investment, while a man doesn't really lose anything by comparison given the same scenario, as one man alone can just endlessly impregnate significantly more women compared to a woman who is less choosy and generally more on the promiscuous side with men. So every woman basically counted when it came to their reproductive capabilities from ancient times, as they were limited in this area and therefore it meant scarcity, and of course, scarcity increases value in economic terms.

Con't 3: It effectively meant every woman basically mattered when it came to their existence in this area for the sustainment of society along strategically sociopolitical lines, it was their biggest trump card compared to men, which has also contributed to this saying of women essentually being 'human beings' - meaning their very being, just existing has value alone, while a man is more a 'human doing' in comparison - because men evolved more along utilitarian lines, and were more geared towards and judged more on their abilities, what they can do, what they offer to society and bring to the table etc.

If women ever felt 'objectified' for their sexuality whether they invited it or not, this could be a valid critique in fairness, while for men, the equivalent of that would be one of appliance, that a man really has to work on their value to be a credit to begin with, otherwise they are basically seen as a useless appliance.

Con't 4: Therefore men won't be treated as an object if they fail in life, but as an appliance that can no longer work effectively as their value is reflected more in their utilitarianism.

It always brought to mind that old scene after the intro and opening of Game of Death (1978) with Hugh O'Brien's character Steiner to Billy Low "A man has got to have all of his parts to make it". ~ https://youtu.be/pzO29tEnYzk?si=koQNr9-JAeYESRp3

As a man's utilitarianism is ultimately their source of power and prestige, their currency of getting by, the manifold of potential relies on it, they can't effectively get by without it, the one who coined that old adage of 'actions speak louder than words' no doubt would have based that sentiment on some man.
Alt: https://youtu.be/8EtruBl1mpQ?si=XOOZidYdWmt9R2sg

Con't 5: Even the most intellectually capable philosophers and thinkers of times past no doubt will have come to this realisation at some point, but even they had to accept (especially for their time), that their intelligence was not something that could be commoditised, what they had was not some trinket that could be traded with the rest of the world to get by, kind of ironic now given the evolving landscape of AI technology in recent years, whereby intelligence is now becoming commoditised.
So now and back then especially, they had to find ways to translate their grandest insights into a more consumable medium of the day for easier digestible consumption for the masses.

@Microprose, The 'Euphoria' ended quickly for Portugal, the Bulgarian people will learn this in the next 4 to 5 weeks. Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Czechia all saw the trap, but the French? Nope. Of all people, they should have seen this a mile off. It would explain why European leaders now want a new game over a tête-a-tête with Russia, providing the makings of a new 'unifying force' whilst excusing the inevitable economic decline for the period, i.e., "you must destroy the standard of living of your population until they are so poor that they become competitive again".