Women’s agency is operantly conditioned.
Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Reader’s Note: This essay collates and expands some comments I left under Do women possess moral agency? (2022/11/2). Organized, formatted, and images added by Jack.
Length: 1,400 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes
Women have Moral Agency
We know women have moral agency. Otherwise God would not have held Eve personally responsible for her sin at the Fall (Genesis 3). Eve was responsible directly to God for obedience to His one directive: Don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God held Eve directly responsible, without reference to Adam or anything he did or did not do. God did not say to Adam, “You were supposed to keep her from eating from that tree. She ate, and that’s your fault.” No. What He did say was that because she ate from the tree and disobeyed God, she would have pain in childbirth and she would have to submit to Adam. “I told you not to. You did it anyway. Here are your consequences.” That’s the very definition of moral agency.
Women have innate moral agency. It’s just that they don’t suffer negative consequences for acting contrary to that agency or for failing to exercise it. So whenever the sh!t misses the bucket, the task of cleaning it up always falls on men — not the sh!ttress. This is an important point, albeit one that western churchians are clearly uncomfortable with and try hard to deny. This is Dalrock’s take on women’s agency in a nutshell.
We can all see the catastrophic results that this consequence-less feeelz gooeyd culture has produced. When we look around, what we see is that women will try to keep all their shenanigans a secret. They’ll lie and evade in order to keep everything under cover.
“Yeah, sure, I know what I’m doing is wrong, or it kinda feels wrong. But it kinda feels OK, and there’s no reason not to, so I am going to do it. It doesn’t affect anyone else. Nobody needs to know about it.”
Even though they’re guilty, they’ll deny it all the way. But if and when it ever spills over the side, then women will subconsciously take the attitude of…
“God holds me responsible, so what right does any man have to do the same?”
“Man screwed up, too, in the Fall, so who is HE to judge what I do?”
If that doesn’t hold water, then they’ll hamsterbate a plethora of solipsistic justifications.
“Yeah, X is true; but people were mean to me/hurt me/lied to me, so I shouldn’t be held responsible for X.”
“I did X, but society has it in for me, so I’m not responsible for X.”
When that fails, then they’ll have a twerking BUT-fest and make a big stink, recasting blame and insisting that they should not face any consequences for their moral failures.
“BUT… Men do it too!”
“BUT… Men make mistakes too!”
“BUT… Men are screwed up too!”
“BUT… Men aren’t perfect either!”
“BUT… You don’t get to hold my feet to the fire! I answer to God, no one else.”
This behavior is no different from a child trying to avoid punishment for intentionally disobeying parents — a behavior that arises from the self-preserving self-interest of the fleshly nature that will lie, destroy, kill, steal, and pull out all the stops to avoid being exposed — but exposure is exactly what is needed in order for her to become more self-aware and adopt a sense of responsibility for herself.
Avoiding consequences for moral failure — it’s what women and children do.
The Importance of Operant Conditioning
Women have moral agency, because they are able to conform their conduct to the dictates and requirements of their situations, including dealing with consequences or the lack thereof. When you impose hard consequences, they conform. When someone in power or authority over a woman imposes hard consequences, she conforms. (I mean REAL, hard, social/economic power, not just moral power, though moral power will work too.)
A consequence is most effective when imposed swiftly and without delay. Most of the time women don’t suffer immediate consequences in the short term. Instead, women often suffer delayed consequences or only long term consequences which aren’t immediately apparent.
It’s also the case that women don’t suffer consequences all the time. Consequences are most effective when they are suffered every time a moral lapse occurs.
That’s just not the case for women.
Women are really, really good at consequence avoidance. And in addition to this, our entire society is constructed specifically for women to avoid or least greatly alleviate negative consequences for moral failure.
It’s also the case that women don’t always suffer temporal consequences; but only eternal consequences. Only the most spiritually astute women will discern this, and never in themselves.
The Importance of Headship Discipline
Women do have agency in the natural. It’s just that those “muscles” aren’t exercised anywhere close to as frequently as they should be. Society has been completely re-engineered to permit women to avoid agency as much as humanly possible.
As I discussed in the previous section about Operant Conditioning, the only reason moral agency works to mold and shape female conduct is because of consequences. If consequences are removed, then a woman will act contrary to that agency.
The only alternative is as Bardelys told us: If women do not have moral agency, then they are little better than children. They cannot be trusted to make any decisions on their own and must always live under the authority of a man: First her father, then her husband, then her son(s). They must never be allowed to handle money, own any property of any consequence, operate any machinery, vote, or have any voice in public affairs. They most certainly must not be allowed even to speak in church, much less have “ministries.” They can work to earn money, but only at menial tasks and only if her father or husband allow it. All of her earnings are the property of the male authority in her life, whether that be her father, her husband, or her son(s).
Women must always be chaperoned in public. All of her interactions with nonrelatives must be under her father’s watchful eye. Women must never be allowed in the company of men unchaperoned until they are married. Women cannot be trusted to select their husbands — the men of her family must pick her husband or at least approve of her choice; and her husband will have absolute authority over all aspects of her life. She may not divorce him, but he can divorce her (“put her away”). College? No way. Live on her own or with other women? No. She will live at home with her parents until she is married. She does not need any education at all beyond high school and her mother’s training to be a wife.
In this scenario, women still have agency, but they’re insulated from any consequences for breach of that agency because they never get an opportunity to breach it. Again, they aren’t permitted to exercise those moral “muscles”.
This is why women were placed under men acting as heads of a hierarchy ordained by God. Men should have proper authority in those relationships.
But what authority do husbands have over their wives, or fathers over their adult, unmarried daughters?
The answer is none. And that’s the problem.
But men still have all the responsibility, which usually means, “Shut up, get your wallet/checkbook out, and pay.”
Which is why men are walking away, increasingly. Or, they’re just taking their chances and getting married anyway, because they want p_ssy.
Women have moral agency. It’s just that they don’t exercise it, either because (1) there are no negative consequences; or (2) they never get to exercise it in the first place.
Female evasion and control tactics are not so much evidence of complete lack of moral agency. They are evidence of avoidance of consequences for moral failures. It’s not that women don’t have moral agency. It’s that women feel free, and in fact are free, to act in ways contrary to that agency because there are no negative consequences for those acts. It is not only their sinful nature; society and government have done this. Women’s freedom from consequences for moral failures are a matter of social, governmental, and public policy. Women demanded, and got, the right to be free from legal, moral, economic, and professional consequences for their moral failures. And, they got society to force men to pay for their moral failures too.
So the real problem is not women’s lack of moral agency; it’s the lack of immediate and unavoidable consequences. Penal science has proven that it’s not the severity of punishment that deters bad behavior, but the surety of getting caught.
- Σ Frame (Jack): How other cultures deal with adultery (2020/8/5)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Do women possess moral agency? (2022/11/2)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Donal Graeme on Female Agency (2022/11/3)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency (2022/11/4)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Dalrock on Female Agency (2022/11/7)
- Σ Frame (Jack, Deep Strength): Deep Strength on Women’s Agency (2022/11/9)
- Σ Frame (Sharkly, Jack): Sharkly on Women’s Agency (2021/11/10)
- Σ Frame (Catacomb Resident, Jack): Catacomb Resident on Moral Agency (2022/11/11)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency (2022/11/14)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Jack on Female Agency (2022/11/23)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency (2022/12/5)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Zippy Catholic’s View of Female Hypoagency (2022/12/12)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Bruce Charlton on Agency (2022/12/13)
- Σ Frame (Red Pill Apostle): Red Pill Apostle on Women’s Moral Agency (2022/12/15)
- Σ Frame (Jack): D. Bradley on Women’s Moral Agency (2022/12/16)