Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency

Female moral agency is men’s mental masturbation.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Length: 800 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Do women have moral agency?

While Donal Graeme came at this question from a Christian approach of morality and responsibility, Rollo Tomassi came at this question from a secular, praxeological viewpoint. In Rollo’s work, it should be noted that outside of Christian culture, illicit sex is hardly even considered a temptation, but rather a rite of passage into adulthood.

Rollo’s first post that addressed this specific question is Our Sisters’ Keeper (2015/7/14). Here he identified this question as unique to the Christian sect of the Manosphere and pointed out that the question of Female Agency appeals to men’s sense of honor and justice and therefore is of interest to men only, as women are more pragmatic. He said it is somewhat Blue Pilled to assume that women have the same concerns as men, and then to make an appeal based on reason and ethics for women to behave better. He regarded the answer to the question as a potentially excusable justification for women’s ethically challenged behaviors (which is a hint to his deeper belief that women do NOT possess agency), and concluded that men will only make progress in establishing moral agency in women if men will assume some responsibility for women’s behaviors.

A couple years later, Rollo answered the question in relation to hypergamy as thus.

“…women being acted upon by a Hypergamy that’s written into their DNA can use it as an excuse for the worst behavior and ugliest results imaginable to men. The logic then follows that women are either active agents and have moral agency or they lack that agency and need men to provide the self-control women are incapable of.

Personally, I believe its a combination of the two; women do have agency for which they should be responsible and accountable for, but also, men need to provide a confident dominant frame under which women want to submit and be associated with. It is not men’s fault that women are Hypergamous, but if there is to be a healthy control of it for the best interests of both men and women, men must understand it and master it. I would say the same of men’s own sexuality and sexual expression — however, we are already overwhelmingly held accountable for not mastering it.”

The Rational Male: Hypergamy – The Misconceptions (2018/1/15)

Throughout his other work, Rollo has addressed most of the issues that DG introduced, especially the motivations of desire and hypergamy (for which he is now famous for), thereby supplying us with an evo-psyche explanation for the behavior.

All in all, Rollo is comprehensively saying that women essentially do NOT have moral agency, but… it’s complicated… which is a roundabout way of extenuating that men are the responsible agents, not women, and that men must master women’s hypergamous, sh!t testing, solipsistic imperatives (or more specifically, a man must master his woman, which I would interpret as being a wife). But Rollo won’t come out and explicitly say what he believes — that women do NOT have agency — because of the obvious implications of such a statement giving both a justifiable evo-psyche excuse and a license to hypergamous hoes riding the CC to their jaded heart’s content… and dumping all responsibility on men.

But readers did not miss his tacitly understated conclusion.

After a month of backlash, Rollo used Jordan Peterson’s “Man up or shut up!” example to denounce his earlier conclusion from being misinterpreted as a “Man Up!” message to men.

“…in almost all contexts imploring a guy to “Man Up” is following someone else’s path, not your own.”

“Manning up Red Pill begins with rejecting the lies of egalitarian equalism and a commitment to real objective understanding of intersexual dynamics.”

The Rational Male: No Prescriptions (2018/2/12)

That understanding being… Hypergamous hoes gonna hoe hypergamously, and AWALT!

He also slated Peterson’s stance as being the same as Christian / Trad-Con interpretations of women being “closer to God than men”, adding a comparison with Mark Driscoll’s “man up and marry those sluts“ as a poignant example, among others. He mentions approvingly that Dalrock has overturned the Christian / Trad-Con message that men must qualify themselves and sacrifice themselves for their wives’ intimate approval. Rollo goes into some detail about how this dynamic among male “Complementarian” Christian leaders is quite extensive, and that their error, like Peterson’s, lies in their insistance on wringing meaning and morality out of everything.

Interestingly, although Rollo shies away from the question of morality de rigueur, overall his conclusions do apply to a moral viewpoint. However, instead of placing the responsibility on women to become moral, he subtly charges men with a moral duty to themselves — to become wary of women’s wily ways and to learn how to wrangle them well.

Tingles uber alles!

Related

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 Agency, Complementarianism, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Ethical Systems, Fantasy and Illusion, Female Evo-Psych, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Honor, Hypergamy, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Moral Agency, Psychology, Purpose, Reviews, Therapeutic Moralistic Deism. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency

  1. info says:

    “However, instead of placing the responsibility on women to become moral, he subtly charges men with a moral duty to themselves — to become wary of women’s wily ways and to learn how to wrangle them well.”

    Whatever Rollo’s professions of faith in Christianity in the past. Unless he believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ who is now Lord and Master of Creation and himself and is God. Then he isn’t Christian.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Correct. Rollo is a cultural Christian at best. A true Christian would not be promoting lifestyles of fornication that Rollo implies or overtly goes with much of his writing (e.g. spinning plates with multiple women).

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I read some of his articles at TRM and watched a single podcast with him. I don’t get the impression he claims to be Christian, cultural or otherwise. Scott has claimed to be a cultural Christian. There’s a big difference between someone trying to practice a version of the faith (EO for Scott) and someone like Rollo.

        Rollo has published PUA books that are made to intentionally look like a Bible. Seems like a mocking parody.

        Like

      • @ cameron232

        “I read some of his articles at TRM and watched a single podcast with him. I don’t get the impression he claims to be Christian, cultural or otherwise. Scott has claimed to be a cultural Christian. There’s a big difference between someone trying to practice a version of the faith (EO for Scott) and someone like Rollo.

        Rollo has published PUA books that are made to intentionally look like a Bible. Seems like a mocking parody.”

        Rollo came to Dalrock’s blog sometime (maybe 2014-2015?) and claimed to be Christian if I remember correctly. He also come to the RP Christians reddit page looking for feedback for his book there too. Deti, Nova, and others who were around should be able to confirm the Dalrock one.

        Maybe he goes to Church, but clearly his actions have not showed that is the case.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Rollo has claimed he attends (attended?) church with his wife and daughter. That’s about it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        To be precise, I do not call myself a cultural Christian, although I do understand it because it has rational appeal for atheists and agnostics.

        High profile cultural Christians include Douglas Murray, Anthony Daniels, Christopher Degroot, Gavin McGinnes, and there are certainly others who subscribe to this idea but don’t advertise it.

        The cultural Christian is a person who, when push comes to shove does not actually believe or have faith in Christ. However, they understand that there is literally no path to western civilization without Christianity. They fully understand the implications of trying to tear down the institutions and simultaneously keep what people like about this life.

        They understand that without Christianity, you have no Christian work ethic, no jurisprudence, no “equality,” no “freedom,” no democratic forms of governance, no curiosity about the natural world.

        Without those, you have no indoor plumbing, electricity, skyscrapers, air and space travel, modern medicine, due process, etc. So they hold their nose and accept those silly Christian precepts in order to enjoy the fruits of them.

        Gavin McGinnes once said “Christianity is the only religion that reconciled Gods infinite greatness with mans infinite smallness.” And he understands, at least on an academic level that those ingredients are what got us here.

        Cultural Christians are in a panic about what will happen if we try to surgically separate the civilization from the underpinnings that created it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        There are also several prominent Jewish figures who more or less hold/held this position on some level.

        Dennis Prager and the late Charles Krauthammer come to mind.

        The problem (I think) with cultural Christianity is that it essentially reduces the faith to a useful moral edifice for people stupid enough to believe it.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        As far as I go is this.

        There are areas where my faith rubs up against my understanding of the natural world. (That is to say, the things I am supposed to believe). So, I work out my faith in these areas pretty much daily. But I do believe there is a God who created the universe and everything in it. I believe He has certain expectations of [humans in particular] whom he created in His image (meaning that we have certain characteristics in common with Him that He feels are worth redeeming).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Jordan Peterson is probably a cultural Christian. When debating on the topic of the literal Truth of the faith, he replies, “I behave as if it were true.”

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I am somewhere on a spectrum between,

        “I behave as if it were true” on one end and

        “God created the entire universe and everything in it in literally 6 24 hour periods and if you don’t believe that you will burn in an eternal lake of fire” on the other.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott, I am often a pretty half assed excuse for a Christian so no judgement here. I happened to remember you using that phrase in a comment here

        The thing is with Bishop-sacramental Christianity, one can be half-assed and still be a Christian (who might still go to hell). The extreme example — Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi ARE Catholic Christians (as much as I hate to admit it) who probably will burn in hell.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “The extreme example — Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi ARE Catholic Christians (as much as I hate to admit it) who probably will burn in hell.”

        Now, if only someone in the Church leadership had the balls to excommunicate them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @scott

        Jordan Peterson unless he actually believes will unfortunately be burning in hell soon.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Part of what I don’t like about Christian culture is the near obsession-level preoccupation with who is or is not going to hell.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Part of what I don’t like about Christian culture is the near obsession-level preoccupation with who is or is not going to hell.”

        I agree. Personally, I believe it’s not our place to say. And talking about it won’t make any difference. It only creates strife and tension.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Different saints of the Church can be quoted as saying nearly everyone will burn or that there’s always a chance for repentence up until the moment of death. Opinions vary. I hope it’s the latter.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Strife and tension are inevitable, since “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4), and calling people to repentance is inherently offensive. Choose with whom you’ll have strife and tension — the world, or God.

        If you want forgiveness and restitution for people like Pelosi and Biden, that requires repentance, and that can require church leaders to “deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:5), which is why the Church should excommunicate politicians who support child sacrifice.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Oscar,

        “Strife and tension are inevitable…”

        True, but that’s not my point. The point is that deadnaming someone as eternally damned will not bring them to repentance. If anything, it will push them further away from repentance.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Jonah 3:4-5
        4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”
        5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        What I like about Holy Orthodoxy (among many other things) is that it does not ever say where grace isn’t.

        We are silent, by doctrine on whether or not the Holy Spirit is active in the local non-denominational church on the corner. Or the big box church downtown. Not our circus, not our monkeys.

        We know for sure where grace is. The Holy Spirit is where the sacraments are. What individual choose to do with those sacraments is up to them. How they encounter Christ is up to them.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      To add…

      Christianity did not “cause” all those things. But they are concomitant. They are correlated and symbiotic in a way that destroying the one destroys the other.

      Like

  2. Lastmod says:

    Rollo’s use of big words, confusing language and made up terms and conclusive one sentence statements are exactly what Mao did when his “Little Red Book” was complied in the mid 1960’s

    Each statement could be locked and fit into a neat reply while seemingly made to look like it was “science” and “fact” and the answers were general…..meaning many of his statements could be used interchangeably by the reader to “make anyone who questions any validity of his views look like an assh*le” or to make him look like he was infallible

    Its a basic way for Rollo to say “I invented all of this”

    Rollo’s books go, way, way above the average intelligence of the man he is supposedly trying to help. Average guy who works in the trades, is a guys guy and just wants to get better with women. That guy doesnt need Rollo.

    Watch his v-blogs and podcasts….when he gets cornered, he throws a hissy fit, blames low level men like me for all the problems out there concerning women (as if men like me had all this power, influence and moxie). Blames Inccels, Blackpill for everything now. Honestly believes all men have equal ability, intelligence, looks, and social IQ…….except those who do not agree with him

    They are lesser, and if he ruled the world, would probably be pushing men like me into ovens.

    Anyway

    Liked by 3 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Watch his v-blogs and podcasts… When he gets cornered, he throws a hissy fit, blames low level men like me for all the problems out there concerning women…”

      I noticed this too. As I was becoming red pill a few years back, working through my red pill “rage phase,” I’d listen to him quite a bit. I’d think, “This guy knows a thing or two about female nature.” Then this side of him popped out at some point and I was like, “Whoa, where have I seen that sh!t before? Oh yeah, guys who could do the proverbial ‘Dishing it out, but not taking it’ routine.” Total turn-off. Very unbecoming, not male like, i.e. not masculine behavior, feminized male behavior, IMO.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      Jason,

      Mostly what I have seen from The Red Man group is doubling down on platitudes like, “You didn’t internalize game.”

      This was somewhat predictable once they realized the Red Pill was a marketable brand. As I mentioned on Adam Piggott’s show almost 3 years ago now, those guys wish they would have copyrighted / trademarked it and are now doing their best to behave as if they did.

      Not “internalizing game” is code for “Buy more of our stuff because if you aren’t getting pu$$y you must not be doing it right.”

      At the same time they harp on this angle, they point their finger at everyone else using the phrase “Red Pill” and label them “grifters”.

      It’s actually pretty funny.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        This is not to say that TRM did not provide some fantastic insights at its peak.

        He was one of the heavy lifters for sure.

        Like

  3. redpillboomer says:

    “However, instead of placing the responsibility on women to become moral, he subtly charges men with a moral duty to themselves — to become wary of women’s wily ways and to learn how to wrangle them well.”

    If I’m reading this right, it contains the reason that I question the motives of a number of the secular red pill content creators, including Rollo; maybe especially Rollo, and the one’s who trail in his wake, Richard Cooper, The Red Man group, etc. It seems underneath the things they say is the desire for p_ssy. IOW, all this “learning how to wrangle them” is for that purpose, to bed the slores.

    I get it, and understand why they have that motive (my flesh agrees with it, but my spirit does not), however there are much higher purposes and callings to this red pill knowledge and work, especially for Christian men. For one, getting men, Christian or non-Christian, to clearly see fallen Eve’s nature and her “wily ways” so they don’t end up SCREWING THEMSELVES OVER as a result of their blue pill stupidity. So it’s not about “ragging on Eve” or bedding her, it’s about men gaining the knowledge, wisdom and understanding they need to NAVIGATE LIFE BETTER, have a more fulfilling life; and for the Christian man, grow in his faith so that he can advance the Kingdom of God during his remaining time here on earth.

    Some other content creators who espouse MGTOW, I don’t get this impression from them. They seem more into educating men on “women’s wily ways.” I like listening to these guys because they give me something useful here and there that I can use out in the real-world.

    For example, there’s a little tidbit I picked up the other day that might be useful in my coaching of younger men. One of the content creators was dissecting the Tom Brady divorce from Gisele, and I thought he was doing a good job deconstructing it. IOW he was providing some useful information to the average blue pill Joe to gain insight into how female nature operates using a famous example (and he was being fair about it, not a hit piece on Gisele). He was doing a good job outlining Tom Brady’s blue pill mindset. He mentioned one thing I did not know about Gisele. Not sure if it’s true or not, but he said Leonardo Dicaprio, held up as the example in the ‘Sphere as a man who beds them in their prime and then discards them when they hit 24, then going out and getting a new 21 year old, had Gisele in her prime! Now, I don’t agree with DiCaprio’s approach to women, however I thought, “Tom Brady you d@am blue pill fool! You could have any woman in the world and you chose DiCaprio’s sloppy seconds???
    WTF TB12?!?!”

    Again, not sure if it’s true, but that’s not the point. It’s also not the point that these are celebrities who have so much money they live in a whole other reality to the average person. No analogy is perfect as the saying goes, however the message to the average Joe blue pill men out there couldn’t be clearer, “Do not indulge in Chad’s sloppy seconds. In the end, nothing good comes out of it, even if you’re Tom Brady (or Brad Pitt, or Johnny Depp or whoever, pick your celebrity).”

    In my men’s work, one guy is going through a huge divorce. He was married to his first wife when he was 22 and divorced by 30. At 32, he married a 39 year old, former CC rider, and now he’s getting his head handed to him in divorce. Lesson to all the 32 year old males out there, Christian or not, “You’re entering your prime years! If you’ve been on your grind during your twenties, you can have the younger woman that’s suitable wife material (if you can find one in the haystack), leave the thirty somethings with all their baggage alone! Don’t be Captain Save-a-hoe! DON’T DO IT! You’re no Tom Brady or Brad Pitt or someone who has so much money they can pay their way out of their mistakes.” Well, they do pay for it in other ways, morally, spiritually, etc, but they don’t end up locked out of their house, sleeping in their car, and not seeing their kids.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Jack says:

      RPB,

      “It seems underneath the things they say is the desire for p_ssy. IOW, all this “learning how to wrangle them” is for that purpose, to bed the slores.”

      Exactly! In spite of all their rhetoric about “helping men”, in all actuality they’re only helping higher SMV men pull their game together and become more proficient in hosting the carousel without getting burned. Rollo and his gang, including the 21 Conventioners from whom he made a break, can be rather condescending and vitriolic to morally-minded men with a conscience and men who can’t score on a regular basis, as LastMod intimated above. He has repeatedly rejected morality and some aspects of Christianity as being Blue Pill. Yes, Rollo has some brilliant insights about the nature of women which we should all take note of, but you have to remember that, at the end of the day, his/their mindset is all about tapping into women’s feral nature in order to gratify the desires of the flesh. As one commenter once put it, “You have to throw out the bones and keep the meat.” This is why I noted at the beginning of the OP,

      “In Rollo’s work, it should be noted that outside of Christian culture, illicit sex is hardly even considered a temptation, but rather a rite of passage into adulthood.”

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        “…at the end of the day, his/their mindset is all about tapping into women’s feral nature in order to gratify the desires of the flesh.”

        At best, this approach reinforces feral female behavior. At worst, it creates more feral women.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Exactly! In spite of all their rhetoric about “helping men”, in all actuality they’re only helping higher SMV men pull their game together and become more proficient in hosting the carousel without getting burned.”

        This is the dividing line for the red pill men, is the covert (at times overt), reason for all this red pill knowledge to succeed in what you wrote above Jack; or is it to open men’s eyes up, get them out of that foolish blue pill mindset, and get them to be successful in life beginning with their relationship with God, then developing their masculinity, and finally, if they want marriage, to approach it in a way where they might be successful at it. I said might because the gynocentric cuture has made it a risky proposition for men, beginning with the laws and the court system skewed totally against him.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      “At best, this approach reinforces feral female behavior. At worst, it creates more feral women.”

      Yes, the PUA ethos has always been “enjoy the decline”, “let it burn.” ROK used to advertise a firepit for your backyard that was the earth (burning.) They’re not Christians (and don’t pretend to be) and don’t even rise to the level of noble pagans.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Yes, the PUA ethos has always been “enjoy the decline”, “let it burn.”

        That’s what they say, but what they do is pour gasoline on the fire.

        They’re not Christians (and don’t pretend to be) and don’t even rise to the level of noble pagans.

        Amen, brother.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Sharkly says:

    Women have moral agency. God treats them as if they do. Thedeti seems to say that women’s agency is weaker than men’s, and that in the absence of others enforcing consequences on them for their actions, women will usually drift towards following their own emotions, even in contradiction to the moral beliefs they espouse. Women’s moral conduct is generally less rationally decided and more driven by what feels good to them in the moment. Although churches will vehemently deny that, God has ordered His patriarchal earthly hierarchy as if that is clearly the case.

    Women are ALL hypergamous. I have not met a single woman who truly and consistently defies hypergamy. A man can marry well beneath himself and easily remain content with his choice for a lifetime, if his wife is faithful and treats him reasonably OK.

    TFM said that: Every woman wants a man she can look up to, and you don’t look up to your equal.

    The presumption of sexual equality will always agitate against all women’s innate hypergamy.

    So where do we get these silly notions of sexual equality? Rollo is right, in that blue-pilled false notions of sexual equality have become doctrines of the church.

    The Bible teaches that God created men first, preeminent, and in His own image, after His likeness, and showing His glory, but that wives are ALL to be treated as weaker vessels, which they truly are.

    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    The earliest church fathers all unanimously believed and wrote that men alone were in the matchless image of the Most High, while women are not the image of Christ, but are the image of His straying church. Early church father, Ambrosiaster, wrote: “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. […] A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

    In the latter fourth century AD, Rome adopted Nicene Christianity as their Imperial religion, to appease forcibly converted Goddess worshippers, the state-coopted Church of Rome then made women into the image of deity so that they could make a woman, Mary, equal to Jesus Christ as a co-redemptrix, and into a substitute goddess whom people could pray to instead of goddesses like their Magna Mater who had been served by the castrated Galli.

    The Protestant reformation to some degree forced the roll back of the deity of Mary, within Christendom, however the reforms fell short of also seizing back the “image of our masculine deity” from womankind. Leaving in place the heretical foundation for presumed sexual equality which is the essential foundation and justification upholding the false doctrines of Feminism. We, men, need to take back our moral birthright, which is to be seen as categorically superior to all women, being the only allowed earthly manifestation of God, having been made in God’s own image, graven from the dust of the earth by the Father of all Spirits and all flesh.

    Ending the emasculating blasphemy against the Godhead, saying that “It” is a hermaphrodite, imaged by both men and women, is essential to deconstructing the foundation of presumed sexual equality which is the foundation of Feminism. We cannot rebuild a sturdy patriarchy upon the lie that men are categorically no better than women. Nor would it be much worth wasting the effort trying to establish a patriarchy where men’s superiority to women is only a fluctuating matter of degrees, where certain men are higher than certain women based only upon (LAMPS) Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status.

    Men’s looks and athleticism will naturally decrease with age and are subject to disfigurement and disability. And money, power, and status are also providential blessings which can be fleeting, and are subject to robbery, rebellion, and slander. Who would truly want to restore such a great permanent responsibility to men if it only came with some slim degree of authority as conditionally judged by the caprice of fickle women, who assess their own competing merit with unwarranted vanity, and which could so easily be negated by so many factors beyond our control?

    Patriarchy has crumbled in the Western world as the inevitable result of the church having given away men’s divine birthright, “The image of God”, and its accompanying divine worthiness and reason to rule, to women. If men are not all held to be categorically superior to women, then all male headship is then only merited in the natural world by fleeting conditional degrees of merit, in which women become the arbiters of whether or not a man’s merit can meet the demands of her seemingly insatiable hypergamy.

    In all mutually happy and healthy long-term marriages, wives, at least subconsciously, must see their husbands as superior to them, not just by an unmerited divine fiat granting all men an undue rank and commanding their wives to submit to them. But a hypergamously-contented wife willingly submits to her man, whom she most usually sees as worthy of her submission. Honestly, every woman wants to submit herself to a “god”. She wants to submit to a male sex-idol. And that is what God has made you! God has said, “Ye are gods”, “Surely every man goes about as an image”, “he [your own husband] is the image and glory of God”. The church is obfuscating that truth! Rollo is right, the churches doctrine is blue-pilled. (Untruthful) They have left off the recorded doctrine which Christ and the apostles first left with the churches, and they have turned aside to peddling Feminist lies. With their tongues they praise God, even the Father; and therewith they also curse men, which are made after the similitude of God. (James 3:9)

    Liked by 7 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Awesome! You made a lot of good points here. A couple of posts ago, I mentioned how it was uneasy for me to talk about this, because I don’t think I could articulate it as well as you have here. Particularly the part, as you mentioned Deti pointed out…women do “seem” to have a weaker agency than men.

      I say “seem,” because I haven’t concluded this, nor do I think it’s imperative for one to commit themself to a belief on the topic. But in 1 Peter 3:7, where Peter writes that women are the weaker vessel, I wonder if he meant “weak” in more ways than one.

      And of course, it’s uneasy, because today’s modern culture would have me believe it’s misogynist to even consider the idea.

      A couple of weeks ago, I had a real life debate with an elderly woman (who claimed to be Christian) about the notion of wives submitting to their husbands. I quoted 1 Peter 3:7 and she looked at me like I just said there was a bomb in the building. I had to clarify that this is what the scriptures actually say.

      During this debate, this elderly Christian woman chastised me for being “judgmental” and she made points like, “I have gay friends and I’ve gone to gay bars…it’s not my place to judge”…I’ll stop there to avoid going too far off subject. But when I hear people like this talk…it really does lend weight to the notion that, if left to their own devices…

      Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        ok well the obvious retort is she can’t judge you for being judgmental. It’s really clear from the Bible that God hates sodomy. He destroyed three different peoples for it (not just Sodom and Gomorrah).

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Also see Romans 1:18-27.

        Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        Another tare claiming to be a wheat kernel. We’ll be encountering lots of these in the days to come.

        I’m sure you probably didn’t want to get bogged down in an argument with her (it’s a waste of any man’s time and intellect to argue with a woman), but it might have been beneficial to ask this woman, “So are you saying that God is a judgmental sexist, homophobic Neanderthal? That’s what I’m hearing here in your disagreement with what He mandates in the Scriptures. Are you sure you don’t want to reconsider your ‘Christian’ label?”

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Scott says:

    I do agree with this statement:

    “Female moral agency is men’s mental masturbation.”

    One time I was thinking about quitting football so I could focus on my job and my girlfriend and my coach said,

    “Well, you do what you gotta do and we’ll be here doing what what we gotta do.”

    Just do what you gotta do.

    Like

    • info says:

      @Scott

      Women will be thrown into the lake of fire or end up justified before God. That and other scriptural examples prove their moral agency.

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      What if par of “what you gotta do” is hold a woman accountable for her actions? If that’s “what you gotta do”, then then part of “what you gotta do” is believe that women possess moral agency.

      Like

  6. Oscar says:

    Off topic: apparently, Andrew Tate converted to Islam.

    That’s hilarious!

    Like

  7. Kentucky Gent says:

    “But Rollo won’t come out and explicitly say what he believes — that women do NOT have agency — because of the obvious implications of such a statement giving both a justifiable evo-psyche excuse and a license to hypergamous hoes riding the CC to their jaded heart’s content… and dumping all responsibility on men.”

    Well, there is another implication which you didn’t mention. If women do not have moral agency, then it is imperative that men impose patriarchy on their societies. Societal survival depends on it.

    I happen to think women do have moral agency, and societies cannot survive long-term without patriarchy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      Not just patriarchy. Like I said before, if women don’t have moral agency, then they shouldn’t even be allowed to raise children.

      As always, don’t just listen to what people say, watch what they do. A lot of men who claim that women have no moral agency hold women accountable for their actions. In so doing, these men prove that they actually believe that women do have moral agency.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        “As always, don’t just listen to what people say, watch what they do.”

        As I’ve been writing this week’s posts over the weekend, I have come to the same idea. The assignation of Agency is more about people’s behaviors than what they actually say or even believe.

        “A lot of men who claim that women have no moral agency hold women accountable for their actions.”

        Yes, I’ve noticed this too, although it seems kinda rare. The interesting thing is that their belief that women DO NOT have agency is what motivates them to hold them accountable. Whereas, men who believe that women DO have agency tend to sit back on their laurels with the expectation that women will exercise agency of their own initiative. But the interesting thing here is that women don’t work that way. Usually, whenever you see a woman who actually exercises agency, somewhere in the background there is a man providing the framework / guidance / initiative / incentive / motivation for the woman to be that way.

        “In so doing, these men prove that they actually believe that women do have moral agency.”

        Yes, but this belief is shown in practice, not in cognition. They may very well have no awareness at all about this difference. This is an example of how people can believe falsehoods in their heads that actually reinforce the practice of truth in their lives. Similarly, people can believe truths in their heads, but have no idea how to practice those truths in their lives.

        Let me give some examples of what I’m talking about.

        I was talking with my daughter this weekend. She was feeling discouraged and sad because her best friend moved away and she said she didn’t have as many close friends as she would like. Now I know the real reason she is moody is because she’s an adolescent girl, but telling her this is not going to help anything. So I gave her a pep talk, told her some stories of my own experiences as an adolescent, said some funny things that made her laugh, and essentially gave her a reframe. The next day, she gathered together about two dozen photos of people she was close to, and of happy moments in her life, and she made a collage on her bedroom wall to remind herself of those people and those happy times. She also told me that since our talk the previous day, she realized that her sister is her best friend.

        I also noticed the same thing happening with my wife. On Saturday afternoon, she called me every 5 minutes until I had a chance to answer her calls. I asked her why so urgent? She said she just needed to hear my voice. I saw that she wasn’t going to tell me what was actually bothering her, so I started talking in a monotone robotic voice. “Hello! You have reached the voice of Dr. Jack… This is the voice of Dr. Jack speaking… The voice is automatically preprogrammed to provide emotional catharsis to the insecure and exasperated wife, 24 hours a day at no charge… The voice is talking… [etc. …] This transmission will terminate in 30 seconds… Thank you for calling the voice of Dr. Jack…” This made her laugh and then she felt better. Later she called me to tell me that she told off her coworker who was giving her grief.

        The thing I observed that is relative to our discussion of agency is that my wife and daughter only changed their mindset and took action after our talk. If I hadn’t talked with them, then they would have continued on with their frustration and blue funk respectively. But I didn’t talk about the factual truth — my daughter’s hormones and my wife’s inability to deal with her contentious coworker. No, I talked about mythos with my daughter and I didn’t take my wife seriously at all. So the trick is not in speaking or thinking the truth; it’s more about bringing the truth to life, which is not at all the same thing.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “The interesting thing is that their belief that women DO NOT have agency is what motivates them to hold them accountable. Whereas, men who believe that women DO have agency tend to sit back on their laurels with the expectation that women will exercise agency of their own initiative.”

        That’s ironic.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Donal Graeme on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: Dalrock on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: Deti on Female Agency | Σ Frame

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

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

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

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

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

  16. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  17. Doom says:

    Hmm. I fundamentally agree with most of your other posts in this series (good series!) but this one I have a disagreement with.

    I think that you are misinterpreting Rollos use of “hypergamy”.

    It doesn’t mean “women ONLY want the top 1% of men”

    It means “Women marry up”

    Women want a partner that can offer more than they alone can offer to their children.

    Which is indeed a type of moral agency. They must judge which men are better than themselves, appropriate leaders, etc.

    Actually, to be honest, having read your post, I think you indirectly convinced me that hypergamy is in itself a moral virtue. It would be pretty irresponsible of women to choose husbands to head their families who have less moral character, less to teach, less security to offer children than they can, wouldn’t it?

    Hypergamy proves women have moral agency. They make a judgement as to which men are better than themselves. They can choose to exercise it anyway they fit

    But it’s like any morality – if you misapply it, it becomes pathologically bad for society, it can tempt us away from the point of the virtue in the first place.

    “I only want men 6 foot or taller”
    “I only want men with 6 figure salaries”

    No different to misinterpreting
    “Men are the head of the family” to mean “my wife has to do everything I say”.

    You see?

    Just like men will be tempted by easy sex – women need to be aware of this.

    I suppose the analogy I’m making is this- the temptation of hypergamously leaving a relationship for a “better” man to a wife is like the temptation of “free” sex to a husband.

    And so I don’t think Rollo is implying he doesn’t believe in female agency, or agree with you that his implication is that responsibility lies on men.

    Men just need to recognise that many women will be tempted to misinterpret hypergamous impulses in a destructive way, that’s all.

    Just like women need to understand that if some floozy starts sniffing around her husband, he will be tempted.

    In both examples, it is the moral responsibility of the tempted to reign that impulse in.

    Liked by 3 people

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

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

  20. Pingback: Bruce Charlton on Agency | Σ Frame

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

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

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s