If women as a whole actually valued male intellect directly itself, there would have been a plurality of young fertile women lining up around the block to suck Stephen Hawking's crippled cock for free in the hopes of locking him down.

And this would have happened before he even became world famous and well-off.

The reality is that women are just as, if not even more shallow than men. Crippling deformities or injuries are basically a death knell for most men's dating/mating prospects outside of gold-diggers. Meanwhile in comparison, an ugly woman with a working womb still has mating value and has roughly an 80% baseline chance of reproducing just for existing. (note: just reproduction, not marriage. This is an important distinction.) So basically the only thing consistently strong enough to override their shallowness is their materialism in a modern Welfare State. Character in a man only matters insomuch as ensuring security in an insecure environment. Translation: They care about character when fucking Chad instead of Billy means starving or other assured and immediate decline in quality of life. The slightly smarter ones realize that it screws up their future prospects and refrain from fucking Chad without him putting a ring on it. But they are a shrinking minority.

And this is why Welfare is dysgenic. It literally selects for the worst traits in women by not punishing them at all or allowing them to defer punishment until the problem has grown to affect more than just them. At best, this leads to stagnation of a society that will be outcompeted or conquered by less naive ones.

A healthy, sane, society that wishes to survive in the long term should instead be allowing both men and women to punish unfitness in their contemporaries. Women do it via sociosexual exclusion, and men should be allowed to do it via socioeconomic exclusion.

This means women no longer being married to the State as a Husband of Last Resort by default via Welfare. Any single mother who demonstrates inability to feed and house her children without external compelled subsidy (including that of an ex-husband via alimony or child support) loses custody of them and cannot regain it without demonstration/assurance of that capability. If the father is deceased or otherwise unable to assume custody, then the children become wards of the State.

Note: I would conditionally legalize prostitution with the stipulation that a woman wanting to be licensed for such must agree to surgical sterilization and regular health screening as well as public registration as such (marriage licenses and registrations must disclose this status to be issued as well) and compelled tithing to a retirement fund specifically administered for women engaging in it. This would mean the overwhelming majority of women by default have a way to obtain funds to support themselves or their children without adding to the pool of hungry mouths that need fed if they have no other skills or value to offer and refuse to acquire such. It's just officially recognizing and utilizing a default feminine behavior instead of ignoring it or foolishly expecting it to not happen, and not allowing women to obfuscate it either.

Despite the State likely being a deficient guardian as well, the implicit trauma of familial separation would serve as a valuable teaching tool to the children that parental inadequacy will not go unpunished, will not be rewarded, and would discourage them from repeating such once they mature.