Why the females of any sexuate species are necessarily going to be lazy, stupid and annoying.

Importing here by reference the earlier discussion of what sexuate reproduction forces upon you as a design choice in your species.

Now let's look at the matter from a different angle.

If you've made your species sexuate, and thereby it followed you'll have a female, and thereby it followed the female will store fat and be slow and physically ineffectual as her bones will be optimized for parasite support rather than locomotion and so on and so forth ; while the male will be comparatively (and not even necessarily by much) faster and physically more effectual, it'll necessarily be the case males will seek out females for copulation, rather than the other way around.ⁱ

If males seek out females for copulation, they'll be keeping double accounting. First, they'll keep a set of books for each female's objective circumstances, as informed by their own taste and preference (which mostly reduces to scalar answers to the question whether she is a juicy fuck) ; second they'll keep a set of books for each female's female-subjective circumstances, as informed by their own understanding of female taste and preference (which mostly reduces to scalar answers to the question whether she's got enough slop in the trough).

If males keep double accounting, necessarily male mating strategy will be some variation of a very simple algorithm : approach all females with higher 1-value than 2-value, and offer an improvement in 2-value. This is significantly cheaper than the traditional approach (as seen for example in waterbugs) ; and the realizationⁱⁱ of this cheapness is the principal benefit as well as the direct causative agent and main supporting mechanism of the development of language as a behaviour.ⁱⁱⁱ

Unrelatedly, hardship is the only mother of improvement. And what is hardship if not a situation where 2-value drops below 1-value ?

The fundamental beta mating strategy^iv insulates the female from the very possibility of improvement, as inseparable part and substantial parcel of its mechanism of action. Therefore -- and necessarily -- the more beta mating occurs in a group, the less actualized the potential of the group's female subpopulation, on average.^v

It's a balance -- meaning : the females of any sexuate species are necessarily going to be lazy, stupid and annoying. Exactly how lazy, how stupid and how annoying they're going to be is somewhat of an open question, but as a matter of certainty they won't be nearly as harnice^vi, smart and pleasant as they could be, nor as they would've been if they were born male.

1. No, this isn't a cultural matter ; even if you can culturally castrate males to try and outcompete females in fat imbecility, resulting in sad lols, you still haven't solved anything. [↩]
2. Realization as in the financial term of art. [↩]
3. The reason for language even existing in the first place is strictly what the Italians call discorsi da letto.

   Specifically, for very good reasons the female will "mate" (as the social superstructure -- you know, holding hands, performing court, etcetera -- built atop actual copulative mating) with the strongest, best male available. She'll be the wife of the alpha, which is why and wherefore the majority of children born in stone age villages are the offspring of the village chief. People are not unlike goats, remember Natalie Wood's character in Rebel Without A Cause ? How she could barely wait for her previous husband's corpse to cool back down to anything resembling homeostatic range before proposing marriage to the kid who killed him ? That's precisely it.

   The problem with this arrangement is that genetic diversity still holds some benefit, and nature's not about to leave any of that on the table. So, from the point of view of sexuate reproduction optimization, the ideal situation is where the female walks down the endless path, hand in hand with the alpha, and as she walks she turns her ass to the side, so some or other beta hiding in the bushes can fuck her a quick one. Who knows, maybe ?

   The reversal of post-retardism is of course amusing. Supposedly these days the "alphas" are the erstwhile betas hidden in the bushes on the side of the road, and the "beta" is the dude walking the herd of cunts. Aren't the eventual if necessary fruits of pantsuitism lulzy indeed ?

   Anyways, language, that's its function, its point and purpose, and how it came to be : you hafta coordinate your impalement of the female, she has to turn her ass just as you jump from the bushes, otherwise the alpha might notice. She has to be "persuaded" to even try, in other words.

   Now go, whisper sweet nothings in her ear like you invented sweet, nothings and ears. After all you did. Didn't you ? [↩]

4. Alpha mating's something entirely else, as the betas are quite annoyedly aware. [↩]
5. Conversely, the less beta mating occurs in a group, the less potential altogether in the group as a whole, owing to diminished genetic variety. [↩]
6. Why's English not blessed with an antonym for lazy ?

   I suppose "industrious" is the best horse at the glue factory, but come now. [↩]