Donal Graeme on Female Agency

Female Moral Agency requires forbidden foreknowledge and self-control.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Length: 700 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

The question of women’s agency, whether it existed and its nature, was a preponderance floating around the Manosphere for a while. Donal Graeme (DG) was the most proactive in spearheading a formal assessment of this specific question. He pondered this question for quite some time, as evidenced by many of his posts, but DG’s post, Moral Agency in Women — Revisited (2013/3/11), was the first post (that I’ve found) which went over the basic premises for women’s agency, outlined the nature of it, and formulated some basic postulates. Thus, DG was thereby the first Manosphere author to put these concepts into concrete words.

Several months later, Graeme obtained a somewhat satisfactory understanding of the subject through his hearing of a tragic story, which is contained in his post, Confessions of a “Good Christian Girl” (2013/12/8). Here, Graeme offered a tentative explanation of women’s agency, in which he points out that a young woman must be able to foresee a temptation far enough in advance to be able to avoid its escalation to the point of provocation. With this new insight in hand, he formulated the postulate that women do indeed have agency, but it all depends on whether they wish to use it or not.

DG’s post, Knowing When To Escape (2013/12/15), describes how difficult it can be for a woman to create boundaries that would lead to her benefit in the long run, and reaffirmed his conclusion that women do indeed have agency, but that they often fail to employ the necessary precautions which would iterate agency.*

* Note: This agrees with my own assessment of how to counteract the sinful nature, and avoid the trap of temptation — namely, by being aware of one’s weaknesses, and anticipating what sorts of situations might elevate the level of temptation above the tolerance level of one’s weaknesses.

DG offered a brief recap of his views a couple years later in response to Deep Strength’s post, Formalization of AWALT and NAWALT (2015/3/22). (I’ll cover DS’s views in a separate post.)

“First, just because scripture doesn’t command it doesn’t meant that women don’t have the ability to agape love their husbands. Scripture contains what is essential, surely, but it doesn’t contain everything- it cannot, in fact. That is why Jesus gave us the Church, after all — for continued wisdom and guidance.

Second, concerning moral agency, I think Deep Strength is conflating moral agency — the ability to choose between right and wrong — with [edit: potential or alleged] female susceptibility to deception. They are not incompatible. Women can choose to do the right thing, just as they can choose to do the wrong thing. Deception merely makes it more difficult to discriminate between the two.

Third, women are indeed able to operate as agents outside of the authority of men. Scripture mentions a number of instances of it, in both the OT and NT. However, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily for the best, at least, all the time. This ties again to the susceptibility of deception — protecting women from deception probably had a large part to do with that. There might be more, of course, and this could be a subject worth exploring in a further post.”

Donal Graeme: Random Musings and Links- #7 (2015/3/25)

In addition to his notes on deception, another noteworthy conclusion of DG’s work is that if a woman is young and innocently naive enough to truly NOT recognize a potentially tempting situation, then it is very difficult for her to know how far is “too far”, and she will easily fall into it. The point of interest, it seems, is that young women (i.e. virgins) are ignorant nubes until they gain some sexperience in this area, and therefore they need parents to monitor them, impose boundaries, and offer guidance.

OTOH, if a woman has somehow gained some street smarts and CAN see a temptation far enough in advance to know where the lines are, then the temptation to dabble, flirt, and push the envelope to the brink is magnified and becomes more difficult to overcome, especially when it gets her more affirmation, ego-stroking attention, and a sense of social power, especially over men.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Adultery and Fornication, Agency, Calculated Risk Taking, Decision Making, Education, Female Evo-Psych, Intersexual Dynamics, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Parenting, Psychology, Reviews, Self-Control, Sex, Solipsism. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Donal Graeme on Female Agency

  1. Scott says:

    Here’s a story written by a woman who seems to be interacting pretty well with her own moral agency.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. redpillboomer says:

    “In addition to his notes on deception, another noteworthy conclusion of DG’s work is that if a woman is young and innocently naive enough to truly NOT recognize a potentially tempting situation, then it is very difficult for her to know how far is “too far”, and she will easily fall into it. The point of interest, it seems, is that young women (i.e. virgins) are ignorant nubes until they gain some sexperience in this area, and therefore they need parents to monitor them, impose boundaries, and offer guidance.”

    I saw a vivid example of this the other night when my wife and I were eating at a restaurant. We were outside on the patio and there was a table of five young girls eating together. I’m guessing they were about 16ish, all fairly good looking, a couple strikingly so. What jumped out at me was they all seemed so “PITA,” all the girlishness, the giggling, etc. Fortunately they were a group and it seemed like the parents were letting them be out together to grow up a bit and have fun while the parents were nearby window shopping the boutique stores. IOW, it seemed like an arranged set up to me, a good thing; letting the girls feel a bit adult-like, a bit independent with the parents close by monitoring discreetly.

    Then the girls’ waiter showed up to service their table, Mr. Chad. Very handsome to the point of being pretty, and well built. Probably in his mid-twenties and seemed to have a friendly personality. He took care of the girls orders and engaged with them in a professional manner even though they acted so PITA with him, giggly and all that. When he walked away from their table after getting their order, the girls were extremely PITA-like, leaning in and just titter-tattering to the max about Mr. Chad.

    My point, I was sitting there looking at this scenario with my red pill lense on and I thought, “OMG, these girls are so fresh, so innocent, that if Mr. Chad could get them alone, one-on-one, he’d have his way with every one of them.” Now, this was just a thought of mine, I saw nothing transpire that evening that would suggest anything; and again, I think the parents set this up, so there was some good parenting going on in the background.

    HOWEVER, similar scenarios are playing out all over society in this teen and twenty something hook-up culture we have, where these young “nubes” do not have adequate parental supervision and are out there with little to no discernment (moral agency) developed. They’ve not reached a point where they can be counted on to behave as Jack described:

    “OTOH, if a woman has somehow gained some street smarts and CAN see a temptation far enough in advance to know where the lines are, then the temptation to dabble, flirt, and push the envelope to the brink is magnified and becomes more difficult to overcome, especially when it gets her more affirmation, ego-stroking attention, and a sense of social power, especially over men.”

    Assuming women do in fact have “moral agency,” what I saw that evening instilled in me further the belief that with young girls, it has to be developed and protected, kind of like society used to do back-in-the-day (Dads, chaperones and all that stuff). Otherwise, it’s the proverbial “lamb to the slaughter” for our girls. Without it, the protection, the training and the time to allow it to develop where the girl’s can exercise it more easily if they so choose, is just a pipe dream that it can happen organically. No way, no how.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oscar says:

      “Otherwise, it’s the proverbial “lamb to the slaughter” for our girls.”

      The same is true of young men being preyed on by immoral women.

      Proverbs 7:10-23
      10 And there a woman met him,
      With the attire of a harlot, and a crafty heart.
      11 She was loud and rebellious,
      Her feet would not stay at home.
      12 At times she was outside, at times in the open square,
      Lurking at every corner.
      13 So she caught him and kissed him;
      With an impudent face she said to him:

      18 Come, let us take our fill of love until morning;
      Let us delight ourselves with love.

      22 Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter,
      Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks,
      23 Till an arrow struck his liver.
      As a bird hastens to the snare,
      He did not know it would cost his life.

      Why aren’t we asking if young men have no moral agency? Why do we hold young men accountable for their moral decisions, but not young women?

      That’s not a rhetorical question. I really want to know. Why aren’t we questioning young men’s moral agency?

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Why aren’t we questioning young men’s moral agency?”

        Because men’s moral agency is accepted as a given. It’s necessary to accept men’s moral agency as immutable fact so that society can hold men responsible for what they say and do. Moral agency for men is required so society can assign value judgments to men according to their character and conduct. We must have men’s moral agency so we can declare men, and their conduct, “good” or “bad”, “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “evil”, “acceptable” and “unacceptable”.

        We can never do this with women. We must question women’s moral agency so that we can never judge them. We are never allowed to judge women or their conduct. There can be no steadfast, immovable standards for women; in that way they can never be declared “bad”, “evil”, “wrong”, or “unacceptable”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        It’s enforced too as evidenced by the Judicial system. There is far less escape for a man from consequences. Which has the societal impact of men learning greater agency. Because those who don’t more often end up in prison or dead.

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        I am currently accountable for my actions. I thwarted 2 sexual advances yesterday. But I must b the only one because they do not hear no – ever.


  3. thedeti says:

    DG’s post helps separate this out into possession of agency, judgment, and accountability.

    Yesterday’s post was mostly about the first: Do women even have moral agency? I submit the answer is yes.

    Once you have agency, the question is then how it’s exercised, which is the judgment part. Can women exercise that agency with sound judgment, rightly dividing right from wrong? I think they can. That can be made much more difficult when women are in the presence of very attractive men. But I still think they can. Many women exhibit poor judgment mostly because they don’t have to account for that poor judgment (see below). They don’t have to use sound judgment because they rarely experience consequences for poor judgment.

    The last part is accountability: An individual’s ability to explain, accept, justify, and integrate into one’s life, the consequences which flow proximately and naturally from the exercise of agency and judgment. Here is where women really have problems, as discussed yesterday.

    A woman uses her agency and judgment, and experiences a bad outcome. She then complains loudly and incessantly about that outcome, and demands external relief from it. That relief usually takes the form of a man or men absorbing the costs and consequences associated with that outcome. Multiply that times a few billion occurrences, and that is why we have the society and SMP/MMP we now have.

    It is official social, governmental, and public policy that women do not have to accept bad outcomes or negative consequences. It is woven firmly into our society’s fabric and culture. Women have learned that they need not accept bad outcomes or negative consequences. They need only complain loud enough and long enough, and $ooner or later, $omeone (usually a man, occa$ionally from the government) will $how up to relieve them of $aid bad con$equence$.

    It’s the accountability part that women really have a problem with.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Am I the only one who finds it quite interesting that our societal and governmental policy extends mostly into bad consequences resulting from women’s sexual conduct?

      Isn’t it fascinating that the one area of human behavior women demand no consequences for is sexual conduct?

      Women are full moral agents socially, economically, professionally, and in every area… except sex.

      Women can socialize, talk, work, own property, and live on their own. But, we are constantly instructed, when it comes to sex, women are hopeless, hapless dupes who can’t think their way out of wet paper sacks. When it comes to sex, women require constant protection, assistance, instruction, reminding, coddling, and pampering.

      When it comes to sex, that fantastically overeducated genius level Ph.D. dissolves into a puddle of indecision and magically becomes completely unable to do anything for herself.

      When it comes to sex, that rah rah sis boom bah you go girl feminist who can do anything a man can do, but in heels and backwards, transmogrifies into a helpless, drooling, babbling moron.

      Women are held responsible for everything they do while under the influence of alcohol or drugs…. except sex. Only in WomanWorld are women held responsible for drunk driving, but not for drunk f_cking. No, in WomanWorld, when a woman f_cks drunk, the drunk man with her is responsible for himself AND for Drunk Woman.

      Hey feminists, and women: is this really the position you want to take? Are you really going to argue that women can exist as full moral agents everywhere EXCEPT sex? Are you really going to argue that women can’t exercise sound sexual judgment and accept bad sexual consequences?

      Aren’t you admitting the correctness of the Red Pill “Women are the oldest teenagers in the house” position? Aren’t you admitting you really are children and need male supervision? Aren’t you admitting you have have no business living on your own and making your own sexual decisions?

      Aren’t you admitting that Daddy really should take the T-bird away?

      Liked by 5 people

      • Scott says:

        I went to a mandatory SHARP (Sexual Harassment and Assault Response Prevention) training at my last duty station in the army. Consequently, it was that training that made me decide I was being shown the door and chose to drop my retirement packet. A few months before I would have pinned lieutenant colonel.

        The topic of the presentation was “Alcohol and consent” and at the end of the brief, I raised my hand and posed this:

        “My wife and I have been married for 13 years. We have little children. SO, about once a month, we send them to my mother in laws house for the weekend, have a few drinks on Friday night and, well, do married stuff. It is one of the great pleasures of being married. And we are both fully aware of what we are doing before we start. If I am understanding you correctly, the minute one drop of alcohol is added to our marital fun, I am r@ping my wife? Even though we are both willingly and loving participating?”

        Her response:

        “Well, only if we find out about it.”

        “I JUST FVCKIN TOLD YOU WE DO IT. So now do I have to worry about being kicked out of the army because we do something that every health married couple in the history of the world does?”

        That’s when I knew it was time for me to go.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        Let me get this straight.

        So, it is now the official policy of the United States Armed Forces that a married male member of said Armed Forces is graping his wife every time they have sex after one or both of them has been drinking?

        Are you people serious?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        The republic is done. It’s just a matter of when.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes, “except sex” because it’s their most powerful tool – how they get stuff.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        If you ask a JAG lawyer, they will tell you the presenter was incorrect. However, these presentations are constantly being given as “official policy” so in the end, it doesn’t matter, it is the message that is going out.

        The folks at the top know this and do not try to correct it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        A Jag would say that mens rea (guilty intent) is necessary.
        However, the reality is that mens rea is now assumed if the woman has imbibed alcohol, and the “perpetrator” is aware she has imbibed.
        This has been the case for at least 20 years now though, it’s one of the reasons I stayed to participate in the sphere. Lot of miscarriages of justice. In the case of a married couple, it would become a factor during the divorce process.
        At the last base, they had a moratorium of 5 years for something like that because it was such a waste of resources to investigate (not that it isn’t a waste after any time at all), I think it was a USAF wide moratorium but I don’t know if that is still in place. With Biden as president, and his assortment of imbeciles I doubt it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Just to add, for clarity, there was a case at the last base where a divorcing wife wanted to charge her husband with rape on their first date. They had been married a few years and their first date exceeded the five year time limit. Thankfully. Else, yes, believe it or not she could have attempted to charge him with rape and if he made any missteps (like, say, apologizing…I tell everyone never apologize in the court of law it can be construed as admission of guilt, even though it is a normal human reaction). He could be convicted.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Just to add, again (I’ve posted about this probably more than 500 times I think it is that important):
        Don’t apologize to the accuser.
        Don’t trust the OSI people, whatever they say get your lawyer.
        It will not make you look guilty, and it just might save your life.
        Always remember: They can lie to you as much as they want, but you cannot lie to them. Expect that they are lying to you.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:


        All good points. Any time you are accused of a crime, shut up and get a lawyer. In my capacity as a forensic psychologist I can now never stress this enough.

        On the matter of the SHARP training, I would have assumed that it was just a one-off, but the navy SHARP trainer said the exact same thing when I was on my joint mission at GiTMO. In that case, there happened to be a JAG lawyer in the audience who stood up and basically told her to stop because she had gone way too far on what it means to simply have consensual drunk sex. She walked off the stage in a huff, knowing she had been caught wagging her killjoy school-marm finger at all the normal couples in the room.

        But if he had not been there, she would have gotten away with it.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        The Soviet Union had Political Officers. We have SHARP, EO, EEO, and now DIE Officers.

        Same thing.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Those SHARP folks are always nuts.
        Couple of assignments ago on a TDY some woman got blackout drunk in her room. She called 911 after waking on the bathroom floor with her shirt off. The SHARP counselor convinced her to keep a dream journal “just in case something happened her subconscious might remember”. Eventually it was filled with very vivid dreams of what she believed must’ve happened. To be clear, there was video taped evidence she was alone in her room the whole time (the hotel had video of the hall).
        Fun times.
        Hope you all have a good day.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Liz WTF? How can he have been charged with r@pe? She married her r@pist? How could that hold up in court?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Cameron, it really happened. I could go on a long long while about crazy bishes with r@pe claims (many lives damaged either directly or indirectly). Even an F16 pilot! (USAF protected her, after Miami Dade wanted to prosecute because she wasted resources, and she had a history of similar at other bases.)

        But I just noticed this is supposed to be a dude only thread. Also, I need to stay off the internet.

        Have a good night.

        Liked by 4 people

      • locustsplease says:

        I said this awhile back they are totally responsible sensible easy to deal with don’t have riddles for every question when you talk with them. Until romantic relationships. Then the hysterics come out. 7 years single I never had 1 woman act like any of my gfs did with the gas lighting riddles brutal cut throat attacks. They don’t do this stuff at work. I don’t have the girl serving me food tell me crazy crap like this. Start dating them and my fing goodness I talked to 1 girl a few years ago 3 days I lasted the manipulation of my every word with emotions and micro aggressions just blocked her. I got an actual headache. She’s married now lord help him.


    • Joe2 says:

      “Many women exhibit poor judgment mostly because they don’t have to account for that poor judgment (see below). They don’t have to use sound judgment because they rarely experience consequences for poor judgment.”

      Exactly, and they may believe their poor judgment is actually sound judgment due to the lack of a negative feedback loop which would correct their poor judgment.

      I know of a young 21+ year old young woman who has a toddler sired by a Chad / Tyrone / alpha type. She refused to accept any child support from the father because it would “crimp” his style. She still giggles when she speaks about the father. In her view, she made a sound judgment, is a success and is considered high status by her girlfriends.

      The government and her mother are ready and willing to step in and help. Because she has minimal education, the government is also providing “programs” for her education.

      In her situation, the immediate consequences for poor judgment were all positive and nothing negative.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    I keep asking the question and nobody wants to answer: if she has agency, how is any of her sins my problem? If she knowingly parkates in sin, it’s on her to repent and correct. We can’t blame society, or lack of fathers, or husbands who don’t protect her or “game” her right. If she has a blind spot, she needs to find it and fix it. That’s what’s expected of men. If we’re going to say that women are the weaker vessel, and that they need masculine guidance, then I need the tools to do the job. Don’t tie one hand behind my back, break or hide half the tools side then blame me for not being able to complete the task.

    Either we’re responsible for these women or we’re not. Trying to play cutesy games of “they’re kinda responsible but also not” isn’t going to cut it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Of course, you’re correct. To ask the question is to answer it: Her sins are not your problem, or men’s problem. Women’s sins are not your problem.

      (Checks ego, sets down ego, prepares for painful response)

      Where her sins become a particular man’s problem is when he decides he wants p_ssy, and then he picks ONE woman to “deal with” so he can get p_ssy.

      “Women’s” sins are not your problem, or a man’s problem, or “men’s” problem.

      A woman’s sins will cause problems for her man. Because she has the p_ssy, and he wants it. So he must encourage her to deal with her problems. That takes individual solutions and responses. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach. It’s all individualized now.

      Any number of things might prevent a workable solution for them. It might very well be that 1) she cannot or will not deal with it or 2) he cannot deal with her inability or unwillingness to deal with it or 3) she can deal with it, but not sufficient to alleviate the problems to his satisfaction. Or any combination thereof. In which case the man then has to decide whether to stay or go.

      You can take an approach like RPA and I have with our wives, which was “wife, X, Y, and Z are not acceptable. Change them/stop doing them, or we are done, and don’t ever go back to them, or we’re done.” Or you can take other men’s approach, which is “OK, had enough, done.” Or still other men say “OK, it’s not really great but it’s good enough, so I’ll stay.” Or you can take the Adam Piggott approach and say “I did that, I’m not doing this anymore, I’m not dealing with women for the foreseeable future.”

      The point of all this is that for us men, it comes down to the fact that we want p_ssy, and we are willing to put up with certain amounts of BS to get p_ssy. It also comes down to the fact that some men got some p_ssy in the past and don’t really care that much about p_ssy anymore. That’s all it really is.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Here’s the main reason the man wants the p_ssy from his woman:

        It’s because she promised him free reign over/full access to the p_ssy. It’s because that’s what he “paid” for. Because full unfettered access to the p_ssy is the main reason he even agreed to all this.

        Ladies: You don’t get to promise the p_ssy and then not deliver. You promise the p_ssy, you give up the p_ssy. That simple.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        “Where her sins become a particular man’s problem is when he decides he wants p_ssy, and then he picks ONE woman to “deal with” so he can get p_ssy.”

        Again, WHY? That’s what nobody is answering. If she’s strong and independent, and has her own agency, then her being my wife doesn’t change anything. Unless marriage brings with it authority, which would reduce some of her agency and shift some of the burden of responsibility to the husband. But we all agree here that a) men no longer have that authority, or it is too weak for the job, and b) she’s going to use her agency to fight you kicking and screaming from holding her accountable.

        We can’t have it both ways. I’m either responsible for her or I’m not. Which is it?


      • thedeti says:

        Well, I told you “why”. It’s not a “problem” from a spiritual/moral standpoint. It’s a practical problem.

        It’s a practical problem because you want the p_ssy.

        I’m being partly serious and partly tongue in cheek here. But you see where I’m coming from.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Again, WHY? That’s what nobody is answering.”

        Dude. Seriously. How many times do I have to answer your question?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        You are effectively asking an ownership question. As in hundreds of years ago when the wife and children were considered part of the man’s estate. Back then, the legal statutes more closely aligned with the nature of marriage laid out in the bible. The husband had the authority to impose his standards on his wife and kids. This is obviously not the case now.

        The real questions are these, does God’s law trump current western law? If so, is the man still held to God’s standard or will God give him grace when it comes to marriage?

        If you don’t think there will be grace in the matter and that husbands will be held to all the responsibility with none of the authority to carry it out, then marriage is not a risk worth taking.

        If there is grace for the husband, then marriage becomes a question of risk from an earthly standpoint of dealing with the ball of stress it can put on him because he still has responsibility with little authority. Still not a great risk, but there is a small subset of women out there where it might be worth rolling the dice.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Oscar says:

      “I keep asking the question and nobody wants to answer:”

      That’s false. Several of us have answered your questions. I’ll do it again. Let’s see if it sticks this time.

      “…if she has agency, how is any of her sins my problem?”

      Is theft a sin?


      If I steal, is my sin the magistrates’ problem?

      Yes. According to Romans 13, that’s why the magistrate is there.

      Does the fact that my sin is the magistrates’ problem rob me of moral agency?

      No, it doesn’t.

      Do I have that kind of authority over my wife?

      No, I don’t.

      Does that absolve me of the responsibility to correct my wife’s sin?

      No, it doesn’t.

      Why not?

      Think about it. Does my pastor have a responsibility to correct my sin?

      Yes, he does.

      Does my pastor have the kind of authority over me that magistrates do?

      No, he doesn’t. His authority over me is limited to church discipline.

      Does my pastor’s limited authority absolve him of the responsibility to correct my sin?

      Not at all.

      But husbands take a much bigger risk than pastors do!

      You’re talking to a guy with 10 kids. You seriously think that hasn’t occurred to me? If the risk seems too great to you, you’re free to avoid it. Everyone here understands, if you choose that option. If you choose to take the risk, Jack, deti, RPA, and Derek have explained in excruciating detail what tools they used to exercise authority over their wives, and their varying results. I can only add that finding a community that pressures wives to submit to their husbands is extremely important, and helpful.

      “But I don’t like that answer!”

      No one likes this answer. Not even women like this answer. Have you noticed how miserable they are? This is where we are, kid. There’s very little any of us can do individually to change things. May God bless you, keep you, and guide you. 🙏

      Liked by 1 person

      • info says:


        The message is always the same. We do what we can. And put the ball in God’s court through Prayer. Geopolitical issues are his problem not ours. Unless we get involved in the Halls of Power but even then we need all the help from God we can get against treachery and other dirty aspects of wielding power.

        Which means we don’t stop praying in any circumstances.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        I mean to say Geopolitical issues are as much God’s problem as it’s downstream effects on us. But God has all the power to effect change should he choose to wield his wisdom and power.


  5. Pingback: Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  6. RICanuck says:

    During the late 60’s as the oldest Boomers started coming of age a great social and cultural fissure opened up between the Boomers and subsequent generations and the generations that came before. Full disclosure, I am a Boomer from the middle of the pack.

    The following video was a 1950’s sex education video aimed at the Silent Generation. It shows mutual respect between the mother and daughter. It attempts to elicit female accountability and responsibility. It attempts to show that sexual feelings are not wrong, but carry consequences both good and bad.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. RICanuck says:

    Further to my comment about the social cultural fissure between Boomers and younger vs. the older generations, I have a social proof, sh!t test question that I have asked of women.

    Jack, if you want to know what the question is, shoot me a private email. I don’t want to publish the question as too many women might see it and rehearse an answer.

    When I have asked this question of GI Generation or Silent Generation women I get an immediate answer. Those generations are rapidly dying off.

    When I have asked this question of Boomer, GenX, or Millenial women I have only once received an immediate answer. About half of the GenX and Millenial women are greatly offended that the question should even be asked.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:


      I came across an insight into men’s version of fitness testing women a little while ago. It is more subtle than women’s version of $h!t testing.

      Women pose questions or create scenarios that generally require men to act boldly. They are testing for leadership qualities and dominance which tends to put the spotlight on the man.

      Men test for support and submission. The spotlight is still on the man, with the woman in the supporting role, which makes it a little harder to identify the fitness test. It is very hard for a woman to bluff the fitness test the longer the relationship exists. In time her words and actions will eventually diverge if she is bluffing, or they will remain consistent with each other and then he knows.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: Dalrock on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: Deti on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: Deep Strength on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: Sharkly on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: Catacomb Resident on Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: On the Concept of Agency | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Did Eve have Agency? | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Zippy Catholic’s View of Female Hypoagency | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Bruce Charlton on Agency | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Red Pill Apostle on Women’s Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: D. Bradley on Women’s Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Female Agency | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Men’s Role in the Mess | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s