On the Concept of Agency

Moral agency is the action of a moral agent.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

On Paradigms

Over the past two weeks, we’ve reviewed the perspectives of 8 noteworthy Manospherians about Female Agency and have seen over 500+ comments (so far) about these views on the topic.

During the discussion under the last post, Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency (22/11/14), it occurred to me that there are a few different paradigms that are being addressed and discussed throughout all the posts and comments this month, namely…

  1. Christian Red Pill / Headship (Deep Strength, deti)
  2. Complementarianism / TradCon / Traditionalism (Dalrock)
  3. Covenant Theology
  4. Feminism / Progressivism
  5. The Secular SMP/MMP (Donal Graeme, Rollo Tomassi)
  6. OT Ancient Near East (ANE) culture / Artisanal Toad’s World
  7. Catacomb Resident addressed (1), (3), and (6).
  8. LastMod jocundly attempted to combine (2) and (6).
  9. RPA superposed (6) onto (4) and/or (5) to form an Onionesque quagmire.
  10. Sharkly made a comparison between (1), (2), and (4).

And OMG! So many other juxtapositions were assumed in the comments!

Moreover, it is easy for someone to take an axiom, statement, or a line of reasoning relevant to one paradigm and humorously or mistakenly assume that it pertains to, or can/should be applied to a different paradigm. Dave Sora and DesertDweller picked up on this as well. Also, Deep Strength noted that it is easy to mistakenly assign one particular paradigm as being an ideal, but we cannot patch up an old garment with new cloth (Matthew 9:16-17). I think this explains a good deal of the confusion.

But there is more…

Paradigmatic Contexts

As a result of having all these paradigms, there are different concepts of agency floating around throughout all the discussion. In general, Biblical vs. secular views have widely different concepts of agency.

For example, when we are speaking of women’s agency within ANE / Christian RP / Covenant / Headship paradigms, we are referring to a woman having the ability to exercise her will in obedience to God and/or the male authority in her life, and that she chooses to do so somewhat regularly.

OTOH, when women’s agency is talked about within churchian or secular groups, they are referring to a woman having the ability to make her own choices in life (supposedly independent of her feral instincts) and to make something of herself by the world’s standards. So when they say women lack agency, they are feeding the feminist narratives of equality, gender discrimination, and victimization.

Moreover, Red Pilled Christian Men regard women as having agency (with a few conditions / exceptions), while churchians, Complementarians, Trad-Cons, and secular voices do not. I believe this is not a coincidence.

This difference should be regarded and taken into account.

For example, either group would consider it condescending to women to state that women lack agency, but for entirely diametric reasons. As a case in point, Rollo is seen as “misogynistic” by the wider culture because he’s willing to state (in a very roundabout way) that women have no agency, without changing from one paradigm (and definition of agency) to the other. Whereas, Rollo is seen as “corrupt” by the Christian Manosphere because he denies that women have agency and we interpret this according to our biblically informed position that they do. As another case in point, within the Christian Manosphere, women who fail to exercise agency are seen as “slores” because of the natural consequences that happen when they don’t (i.e. they become unfit for marriage). But OTOH, a woman who does exercise agency would be obedient to God and submissive to her male Head, and this is regarded as being a “doormat” by the world (while males are calumniated as toxic misogynists, etc.).

On Definitions

In addition to the diverging concepts of agency as a result of different paradigms, there are also different definitions of agency being used, even within one paradigm. And when the adjective “moral” is added to agency, it becomes further nuanced. This is where it gets really confusing, hence the importance of this month’s study of Agency.

In all the writings and discussion about the topic of women’s agency so far, I have noticed a significant source of confusion about whether the term “agency” is used as (1) a noun indicating a potential, (2) a noun indicating an ability, propensity, and willingness to exercise free will, or (3) a noun referring to a general habit of acting in a conscientious and responsible way and taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions. Seeing how this could create a divergence of opinion, I decided to check the dictionary on this, and I was amused to find that it does have several definitions of agency, including 3 that match my observations and 1 that matches my own.

Among other definitions, we have these which are of interest to the discussion.

Agency

  1. The duty or function of an agent.
  2. The capacity to act or exert power.
  3. A means of exerting power or influence; instrumentality.
  4. The state of being in action or of exerting power; operation.

The first definition is the one I held going into this study. (See the next section for more on this.) The other three are definitions / usages that have cropped up in the reviews I posted and in the comments. It may be helpful for readers to identify which definition of agency they have in mind, and to consider the others when reading. I believe this will help sort out the confusion as it may explain the wildly diverging differences in opinion.

Agents have Agency

Given the above, I guess I need to explain my initial concept of moral agency.

Put simply, moral agency is the willful action of a moral agent. As Christians, we are agents of Christ, and we strive to put forth God’s standards of morality. It is difficult, and at times confusing. But as we grow in spiritual maturity (i.e. discernment and wisdom) we learn how to act better as moral agents of Christ.

The definition of “agent” has a few definitions that lend further insights along this perspective. Among others we find…

Agent

  1. A person responsible for a particular action.
  2. A person or thing that acts or has the power to act.
  3. A person or business authorized to act on another’s behalf.
  4. A person who acts in an official capacity for a higher authority, e.g. government, police, security, etc.

Revised Statement

My past writings here at Σ Frame have taken the stance that women SHOULD have agency, but in reality, they do NOT, or at least do not show much if any evidence of it. I’ve had some disagreement, but no one could articulate exactly why they disagreed. But now the reason is more clear to me.

To restate my stance with greater clarity in terms of the above definitions…

  1. All women have the potential for exercising moral agency (agency, definition 2).
  2. Women do NOT have the propensity nor willingness to exercise moral agency (agency, definition 3).
  3. Women only have the power to exercise moral agency within the constraints of the biblical Covenant (agency, definition 3).
  4. Women must become moral agents before they can exercise moral agency (agent, definition 3 with my additions; agency, definition 4).
  5. Women’s agency is learned (agency, definition 4).
  6. Men act as agents in molding and teaching women to have moral agency (agent, definitions 1 and 3 respectively with my additions; agency, definition 4).

Concerning points 4-6, (agent, definitions 1 and 2) loom large. IOW, women must be given a task and held accountable for their behavior, and held responsible for their decisions and the outcome. The place and importance of this has been mentioned several times before. IOW, discipline. Combining the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy with Proverbs 3:12 and Hebrews 12:6, it becomes apparent that men love their wives by disciplining them, “washing them with the Word” (Ephesians 5:25-27), and teaching them to develop moral agency.

As Deep Strength recently emphasized, Men should be aware that some women are compliant, submissive, teachable, and trusting, while others are not, and some women are aggressively militant against Headship. Seeing how important this is towards attaining a God glorifying marriage (and Headship is the only way this can be obtained), perhaps this is the whole reason why it is important for women to be submissive.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while. Given the complexity and confusion surrounding all these definitions and usages, I suspect that further clarification, explanation, and refinement will be needed.

Conclusions

From here on, it seems that we’ll need to be a little more precise in our wording. As a way to circumvent further confusion, I might suggest being more specific by…

  1. Indicating which paradigm we are speaking of, either the worldly or the biblical.
  2. Using the terms functional agency (definition 1), potential agency (definition 2), kinetic agency (definition 3), and dynamic agency (definition 4). (Pardon me for being a STEM major.)

Granted, even if we took the effort to make these distinctions, it would still be wordy and confusing, and maybe even exhausting. This distinction may very well turn out to be meaningless in the real world application, but it does seem to (1) explain the nature of some disagreements and (2) create more order in our mental model of things, and (3) provide a model from which we can gain some further insights.

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, Communications, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Introspection, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Persuasion, Philosophy, Psychology. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to On the Concept of Agency

  1. info says:

    Interestingly Testosterone isn’t only associated with Dominance but submission to legitimate Authority:

    Testosterone promotes either dominance or submissiveness in the Ultimatum Game depending on players’ social rank:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05603-7

    Helps make people comfortable with subordination once the hierarchy is established:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453016304292

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Lastmod says:

    all the talk about about visceral looks (that cannot be helped / she cannot help that) all the talk about her “nature” all the talk about she cannot help who she falls for, all the talk about how she needs leadership……or she cannot help what she does

    red pill / game / PUA is pretty much telling us that women have no agency

    sure… some exceptions but mostly the guys guy is the one living as if women have no agency.

    I believe they do but then again… I will be told that I “think woman think like men”

    Pretty much believe what you want because there were so many definitions on agency and ideas about it………. and in true man-o-sphere fashion:

    If you dont agree with my take, you are cuck / blue pilled / soy boy who pedestalizes women

    Lots of talk about sex too….. and its a sin for premarital sex but way too many “nut only if”” statements. So many of you love to justify your past, but women cant be forgiven…… but by your own logic…… they cant help it

    [Jack: Hmmm… Paradigm (5) with the observation that premarital sex is a sin, which is taken from Paradigm (2); (male agency, definition 2, and demanding agency, definition 4 from other men); (female agency, lacking definition 2); (male agent, definition 2); (female agent, definition 1). Hope I’ve got that right. 🙂 ]

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Lastmod,

      “red pill / game / PUA is pretty much telling us that women have no agency

      sure… some exceptions but mostly the guys guy is the one living as if women have no agency.”

      There is a subtle yet important aspect to your observation. The PUA types are incentivized to convince women they don’t have agency* that really does exist (because God is the ultimate standard setter and holds us all to account). They try to manipulate feelings to get women to forget that there are consequences for their actions (we’d refer to this as her hamster). This is very similar to the serpent going after Eve in the Garden, telling her what she wanted to believe and convincing her that there would not be bad consequences for her actions.

      *By agency I mean the ability to know right from wrong and act accordingly.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        And… it works. Even on women who know God.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        And… it works. Even on women who know God.

        This shouldn’t surprise us. After all, T&A works on men who know God. Like Billy Graham used to say, the three greatest temptations of a preacher are the girls, the gold, and the glory.

        The difference is that men actually get held accountable.

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      So many of you love to justify your past

      Who, specifically?

      women cant be forgiven…

      Says who, specifically?

      …but by your own logic……they cant help it

      Says who, specifically?

      Like

  3. Sharkly says:

    “… it becomes apparent that men love their wives by disciplining them, “washing them with the Word” (Ephesians 5:25-27), and teaching them to develop moral agency.”

    But when y’all actually find Sharkly out disciplining, scrubbing the blemishes off, and shepherding women (even indirectly) holding them answerable for their words and actions against God’s holy patriarchal order. Who are the first to bleat that he’s not being looooovvvving enough?

    Sarcasm Alert: You’re doing it wrong! First you have to cut your own dick off and make a bunch of apologies before you can tell a woman anything she might not want to hear. It never your place to slut-shame another man’s rampant whore even when she’s spewing her whorespeak in your face in a men’s forum. Know your place! Men are to be silent in the congregation as other men’s whores pollute the place with their natural defilement. Oh, and when you quote the Bible regarding women, that’s spiritual abuse. You’ll drive people away from Christ by insisting that they actually take Christ seriously and do what He commands, don’t cha know. They don’t need to get serious, just let ’em wipe their a$$ with Christ’s name, more people will be willing to accept Christ if they can use His name like moral toilet paper. Oh, but you said the other “C” word, Sharkly. That’s taking our goddess’s name in vain. Worship York Hunt ladies! We worship York Hunt! /S

    If ya think I’m unloving, you’d have wilted at the early church’s masculine doctrine.

    Origen said:

    “Men should not sit and listen to a woman … even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”

    Women demand the authority of a man, the privilege of a woman, and the responsibility of a child.

    Cap’n Save-A-Ho to the rescue! Gonna get that unloving Sharkly! He doesn’t worship our goddess! Get back on the plantation Sharkly! Get the hounds! We’ve got a runaway male, headed North.

    In an adulterous age, wouldn’t love and slut-shaming, go hand in hand? Wouldn’t it? Yeah, you know I’m right, but you’ll still stick up for your goddesses. Come at me bra! 🙂 I see you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      Long sentence alert:

      In case my point in the comment above is hard to follow, what I was trying to point out was, that today people are brought up so marinated in our churchian goddess worship culture and the exaltation of women into being equal to or better than men, that when they see a man who talks and acts like he views all women as being beneath him, they reflexively perceive it as a blasphemy against womankind who are at least half of the image and glory of their hermaphrodite deity, because they view women as being made in Her likeness.

      Their moral belief is that for me to believe that all men are categorically superior to all women because men alone were made preeminently in the image, likeness, and glory of our Father and Son patriarchal Godhead, and given a godlike dominion over women, is inherently unkind to women. And so, if I act according to those beliefs, I am being unloving, in their minds. Just as the early church fathers would be thrown out of todays churches for demanding that women be silent, wear their symbols of submission on their heads, and submit reverently to their husbands in all things.

      Now if folks just want to tone police me and claim my word choices don’t sufficiently elevate the pack of whores who stole my sons by their lies and stole my wages to finance a demonic whore’s rebellion against me and now have me subject to indentured servitude for four more years plus owing 100K to a whore who never loved me, but only used and abused me, using my devout religious convictions as a weapon against me, well, then, bless your heart. How do I know that she never loved me, and how do I know that I love women?

      1 John 5:2-3
      2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

      Get a load of the unrepentant fornicators who still glory in their former wickedness calling me unloving! SMH What next? “Legalistic” because I love God’s laws? Gotta sift through that chaff to find the grains of truth. Gotta be prepared to be a rock of offense and be hated by all men, if you want to take the difficult way that so few will find. When they can’t dispute your faithful deeds then they will naturally resort to maligning your motives. To love God is to be at enmity with the world. Expect it.

      [Jack: This one is hard but I’ll take a stab. A juxtaposition of Paradigms (1), (2), and (4); (male agency, definition 3); (female agency, claiming definition 4 and denying definition 1); Not sure about your concept of agent, maybe definition 1.]

      Like

  4. hamg says:

    I thought moral agency just meant you’re capable of doing good or evil and should be held responsible for your actions. Biblically, everyone is a moral agent since God holds each accountable for his or her own sin. That’s why it’s been said that complementarians deny women’s moral agency–they say a wife’s lack of submission is her husband’s fault, etc., instead of holding her to account.

    I also heard a dad dryly noting to his 3 year old that he was getting disciplined for acting out, and not his baby brother, because he was a moral agent. Old enough to be held to obedience to dad.

    So that’s been my definition this whole time I’ve been reading. No wonder I got confused by some of these posts.

    [Jack: According to your description, you are using (agent, definition 1) and (agency, definition 2). Now you know! 🙂 ]

    Liked by 3 people

  5. thedeti says:

    Slightly off topic

    All this agency talk explains very well how a woman’s past is relevant.

    What a woman has done with other men in her past is very much her current man’s business.

    What your woman has done in her past is very much your business.

    Cliff’s question from the last thread, about Cliff’s wife’s past history — very relevant. Extremely relevant. Her past history is very much Cliff’s business.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      Correct, if you make her your wife.

      This is where Jesus’ analogy of sin as a debt is very helpful. If some random woman has $100k of debt, that’s not my problem. If I marry her, then her debt becomes my problem. A man gets to choose (because he’s a moral agent) whether or not to make a woman’s debt his problem. He’s not obligated to take on her debt.

      This is also why falsely accusing men of being “unforgiving” – as Jason did above – is wrong and cruel.

      Forgiveness has nothing to do with it.

      A man can only forgive sins against himself. He can’t forgive a woman’s sins against someone else. Nor is he obligated to take on the consequences of her sins.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Well, it becomes his business if he is seriously considering making her his wife. Which is why when the woman does the “what am I to you? Where is this going? I want to get married and if we’re not getting married I’m moving on” thing, he needs to say “OK. Put it all on the table. Your debts. Your obligations. Your past. Your past sexual history. I need to know all of it, right now. If I find out you lied, we’re done.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Deti,

        You’re a lawyer. What do you call it when someone falsifies information in order to enter into a contract? What are the consequences for doing that?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        Fraud.

        When you get into a contract by false pretenses it’s called fraud in the inducement or fraudulent concealment. The consequences are, in the contract context, usually damages. That’s just a fancy term for “money”. Sometimes it’s “unwinding”, which is putting the parties back into their pre-contract positions as best you can.

        There are lots of parallels, but marriage isn’t really a contract, not anymore. In marriage, the only remedy you have is divorce.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        You heard it from the resident barrister, folks.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I don’t agree with the equation of marriage to a legal contract. It doesn’t work.

        In contract law, your remedy for breach is money damages. In marriage, you have only one remedy: divorce. But with that “remedy”, the man must continue to pay the woman. He has continuing obligations. Her only obligation is to use his money to “support” the children of the union.

        If we were going to make this like contract law we would require parties to prove breaches and then make the offenders pay damages. In reality, in marriage every party breaches and every party is damaged.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Deti,

        Right. I only meant to point out the fraud. Every analogy fails when pushed far enough.

        Like

      • locustsplease says:

        @deti it’s more like a crime. You walk in here’s the paperwork he’s admitted hes guilty of the crime. Then if the victim has forgiven you out of court they don’t convict. But if she doesn’t then just like any crime once convicted the constitution does not apply. You have no rights against indentured servitude or imprisonment over debt.

        But there is no contract. If it was a contract it would say I will get joint custody of my children and any asset my name is on. Typically for a middle class man a felony is laughable compared to a divorce. I would have taken years in prison instead of my sentence. I still owe her 10s of thousands 7 years after a 2 year marriage. She made double what I did. If they followed their own laws I would own valuable farm land in Iowa and an excellent stock portfolio that’s just what she hid from the court.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        deti & locusts,

        The one who violates the contract (covenant, whatever) should leave with nothing. The one who upholds his/her end of the bargain should keep everything – the kids, the house, the cars, the bank accounts, the dog – everything.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      Yes, in hindsight I really should have interrogated my future wife more about her past, and dumped her if she refused to be open and honest with me. But I believed all that blue-pilled Chruchian BS about how I needed to forgive and forget her past, as long as she had said the magic word, “Jesus”. And why even ask about it, if your job as a churchian husband is just to forget it all. I didn’t have to forget it because she told me almost nothing about it. But it somehow all came back to haunt our marriage, even though I was mostly in the dark about it all.

      I would warn any young man to keep themselves a virgin until marriage and to insist on only marrying a virgin. Any young woman who has freely given herself to other men and has not saved herself for her future husband nor saved herself for marriage, is clearly showing how little she respects and cares for her future mate and how little she values God’s institution of marriage.

      My wife didn’t respect me, nor marriage, enough to save anything for her marriage and future husband. Hell! She even withheld stuff from me that she had voluntarily done for other men, after lying to me prior to marriage claiming that she wished she had saved all that for me. When she had no intention other than to refuse to build trust, but to instead spend her entire marriage taunting me that she would never respect her husband as much as she respected other men, because it would be “demeaning to her as a woman” to allow her husband to have her in ways she had gladly let other men have her. She has an intimacy disorder, which she kept completely hidden prior to our wedding day. She really is a piece of work.

      Anyhow, my point is that by giving away what was supposed to be kept sacred and saved for her future husband, by not keeping the marriage bed holy, and thereby willfully damaging her future marriage and your future children’s home, she rally has sinned, and part of that sin was the complete disregard of God and the dysfunction and trouble caused to her future husband, and your future kids lives. A “reformed” slut obviously needs to repent and get right with God, but she also has robbed her future husband of much joy and the purity that should be a part of marriage, and instead she is offering him undisclosed dysfunction and psychological baggage, by already having cheated the sh1t out of her future marriage.

      At that time, before I married her, I was blue-pilled and thought that since my future wife was crying and claiming her past caused her too much pain and shame to even speak of it, that if I forgave her, that the stuff would stay in the past and would not get thrown back in my face on my honeymoon and be intentionally used to distance me throughout our entire marriage. Who would have guessed she’d be staying in contact with her former fornication partners throughout our marriage, spending her romantic energies chasing them, while denying her husband all forms of intimacy. I had thought her past was too painful and shameful to even speak of? Lying Ho!

      Invite that unholiness into your marriage bed at your own peril. Just because you truly forgive her, and are even too naïve to realize where the offense against you and your marriage was, does not mean that her tearful repentance isn’t just masterful playacting, and that she won’t satanically taunt you every day of your marriage with the fact that she’s a whore who won’t put out for you and that she lusts for every man she’s ever slept with, but you. I literally got to hear that sort of stuff multiple times a week for 15 years. I know it sounds unreal, but I wouldn’t make up stuff that crazy if I wanted to be believed. In fifteen years I never heard a positive word from her regarding our sex life. She actively withholds praise/respect to create and maintain distance. Then after she divorced me that nut who always began sex with arguing instead of foreplay, insisted that we not speak during sex, and then dashed off hollering insults at me as soon as it was over, then claimed that our sex had been really good. Crazy Nutjob! That dysfunction might have been good for her, but it was pretty evil treatment towards me.

      She demonically tried to make me regret I was a Christian and that I felt duty bound to honor my vow when she delivered zero of what she vowed. She would literally argue with pastors during counselling that she should be able to be having online affairs with her past sex partners when we were there because our marriage was so troubled and she was so stubbornly unworkable that I was hoping somebody else could talk some sense into her since it was clear she wasn’t hearing me no matter how many times and how many ways I explained it to her. She obviously needed discipline, not just more arguing, but I’d have been locked up in jail if I had provided any real discipline, and the churches always refused to perform church discipline on one of their goddesses.

      Anyhow this deranged whore used the “family” court to steal my sons, filed false accusations against me claiming I was a sex addict. It doesn’t matter that I hold a position of high responsibility while she has three diagnosed disorders and is on psych-meds, it doesn’t matter that I had a full psychological evaluation that found I was normal, free from any disorders, and there was no reason why I wouldn’t be a good father. The facts of the case, and all that is right and good just don’t matter those whores at the vagina-worshipping-court stole my kids without any cause besides their desire to do the will of their lord and master Satan.

      On the witness stand when I asked my wife why, after she had denied me sex for a year and later two psychiatrists had vouched that there was no trace or any sings of sex addiction, that she still maintained that I was a sex addict, and she claimed it was because I was “still so fixated on sex being a part of our marriage.” As if I was supposed to get nothing but insults and infidelity in exchange for my livelihood, my love, my protection, my fidelity and all the other blessings I worked to provide for our family.

      Anyhow, don’t stick your dick into crazy! Just Don’t! If she has any psychological issues, just pass, she’ll likely pass them onto your kids.
      And FWIW, her intimacy disorder did not show up at all until After I slipped the ring on her. Prior to that she was everything I felt I needed in a wife. And by about four days later I couldn’t even see the girl I had married in her, she was a completely different and horribly evil person and I knew I had been conned into making the biggest mistake of all my life. That demonic whore has fraudulently stolen two decades of my life, sabotaged my dreams, stolen my sons, and is now raising them up in her own cultural-Christian hypocrisy. Be warned, there are fates worse than death.

      Not every woman is going to be such a wicked trap as my wife, but in toady’s world, any woman can be. Heck, I’ve heard of guys who have had it even worse. Knife wielding crazies attacking them and such. And you gotta know they weren’t like that before they married them. Nobody would marry someone who acts like that. But then suddenly there comes the demon at ya! Seeking to kill, steal, and destroy.

      As Dr. Jordan Peterson said, their really is no way to correct a crazy woman in our society. You’re stuck! And if you go to churches for help, they’ll reflexively side with the demon.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “I would warn any young man to keep themselves a virgin until marriage and to insist on only marrying a virgin.”

        If this didn’t work out for Scott, how can this possibly work out for any other man?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Scott has said he got fat and lazy with wife #1. He didn’t engage in any gross misconduct. Also, she wanted children and he didn’t. (He was honest with her about this beforehand.)

        There was more to the story than “even alpha Scott can’t keep a virgin wife happy.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        thedeti,
        I certainly didn’t say that virginity would make your marriage sin-proof, or that virgins don’t ever end up getting divorced.
        I just recommend virginity, as opposed to whoring.
        Either spouse can unilaterally get a divorce with no-fault required.

        “… how can this possibly work out for any other man?”

        Marriage works out for men all the time. I once worked with a guy who had “partial dwarfism”, he was mentally slow, exceptionally short, fat, bald, boring, ugly, dressed sloppily, and his joints all had a shockingly limited range of motion. But, he was quite honest, and he claimed his kids and his wife all adored him. I think most of that is dependent on the wife’s willingness to focus on making the best of her situation, instead of crapping in her own nest and then trying for a fresh start with someone else.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. david brainerd says:

    Agency is a fancy word for free will. I remember my grandpa in the pulpit always said “we are free moral agents.” I always thought it was strange but it was his way of saying “we all have free will.” And we do all have free will…except for Calvinists. That is, those who deny they have free will lose it, or lose the ability to excercise it because they don’t believe they have it. Women are as a species (with very few exceptions) Calvinists. Jean Calvin (“his” name was Jean) was probably a woman in drag. Because most women deny they have agency, therefore in practical terms they don’t. Its like the Buddhists who say “there is no soul”; They cease to have a soul by that act, because thereby they sell it to Satan. This is what women have done en masse with their agency.

    Like

  7. Oscar says:

    Off Topic:

    There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.

    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

    Sometimes a dangerous man looks like a goofy kid.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      A man that looks like a Good boy. But is deadliest of them all.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      Vigilante. Hardly dangerous. Claimed “self defense” killed a few people, put the tears on the stand got sympathy.

      A woman does that

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Hardly dangerous.”

        Tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without saying you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Okay. Giving a firearm to a vigilante is “dangerous”

        The first NRA rule of weapon safety. Never point a weapon at someone unless you intend to kill them and in conjunction with that same rule you own a firearm and learn to properly respect and use it so you dont have to use it.

        Plenty of people have defended themselves and their property and are sitting in jail. Sitting in prison.

        Rittenhouse was an actual kid LOOKING for a fight and confrontation and defending property that wasnt even his, nor lives that were not his family. He’s hailed as a hero.

        He belong in prison. Men who actually defended themselves are in jail now, he gets a away with it.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Keep telling me you are absolutely clueless on the subject without saying you’re absolutely clueless on the subject.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      He shot that little punk child m0lester in the junk. Heartbreaking.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        So, we all should go around shooting people, and IF they happen to be a child molester, and it comes out during the trail, its okay.

        Prosecution: Your honor this man killed a bunch of people

        Defense: Well, after they were dead we found out, one had a speeding ticket, one was behind on his child support, that one was arrestred once for assaulting an officer, so its okay……those punks should have been shot anyway

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Yeah. That’s exactly what happened.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        He didn’t “go around shooting people” and I’m glad he shot the child molester – I hope it was horrifically painful.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Okay…Rittenhouse knew the guy he shot “this man is a child molester, I am going to make this horrifically painful for him”

        Then he didn’t need the show of tears on the stand. “Don’t blame me, I’m just a kid and and I was defending myself and the world from child molesters”

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        If you are going to show up to a riot where there is violence, looting, and burning. A place that is dangerous, showing armed……guess what????? You just might find yourself in trouble.

        He was looking for it.

        The old man used to say about “rough places” and “bad places” to me:

        “If its a place that’s bad, police are showing up, crime…..probably best to stay out of there to begin with.”

        He was a kid who thought he was tough cause he showed up to a riot packing. The heat got bad, he killed. He then cries about how he “didn’t mean to” (despite bringing a weapon to a party like that.

        You guys choose the wrong hereos. Who is that woman he is with? His girlfriend?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        If he were my kid I would have told him not to go. He’s not my hero but I’m glad he took out the child molester Joseph Rosenbaum. I assume the woman in the picture is congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green – I don’t follow politics that closely.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You’re absolutely right, Jason. Before defending oneself from an attacker, it’s imperative that the intended victim first verify that the attacker has been convicted of anally raping five little boys.

        Rittenhouse failed to run a background check on his attacker before squeezing the trigger, and therefore deserves to be buried below the prison.

        Thank you for your insightful analysis.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        you’re welcome. If anyone in your family was killed by someone like Rittenhouse, I am sure you would “understand his reasoning”

        So Rittenhouse is going online and looking for child molesters to kill. Good. He should check the local church, and all the kid-f*ckers in the republican and democrat parties and hollywood.

        Thanks for that making that clear.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Have no idea who “marjorie talor-green” is she another “conservative” woman who cant take her husbands name solely

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You’re absolutely right, Jason. Justice should be administered in accordance with how someone feels about their boy-raping relative who attacked a 17-year-old boy. Brilliant!

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        so he knew the person he was going to murder was a child molester? Great, go get your weapon, go find child molesters (most will be in your local church) and kill them, because Kyle here had a right to do so…perfectly okay according to you…but dont you dare have an abortion! That is murder!!!!!

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You’re absolutely right, Jason. When someone attacks you, and you kill them in self defense, that’s murder. Bury the kid under the prison. That’s true justice.

        Like

  8. Pingback: The Moral Agency of Dogs | Σ Frame

  9. cameron232 says:

    Noone said he knew that about Rosenbaum – of course he didn’t. I doubt he aimed for his junk but man that’s justice – a 5.56 round in the child molester’s dong.

    Like

    • Lastmod says:

      so that’s okay to go to a riot, armed looking for a fight, and he just-happened-to-shoot a child molester.

      Brilliant concept of justice you have. When the next Rittenhouse shows up and just happens to kill someone you know, we’ll make sure to bring up the whole record and justify why that person you know “just had to be killed”

      He’s the reason the NRA is bankrupt and has a bad name. Vigilante, whines and cries on the stand when he could be held accountable. Coward.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Wisconsin has open carry laws. Rosenbaum attacked him as did the other guy he killed and the guy whose bicep he blew off.

        I don’t know any child molesters, wouldn’t associate with one and wouldn’t care if one I knew were shot. As a father and as a boy who was victimized by a creepy pervert I’d enjoy stomping a wounded Rosenbaum to death.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Exactly why people are dead, and he came to the riot armed. He should have stayed home.

        So, Rittenhouse now should be online finding “molesters” and “sex offenders” online he should go out and kill them.

        Oh…yeah, that sex offender thing “registry” mostly men on that, and they dont say what the offense is. He could have been 18 and was getting a blow job from a 16 year old girl with “low self esteem” whose “law and order” daddy wanted him prosecuted

        He should be shot too…he’s on the registry. He MUST be a pervert

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You’re absolutely right, Jason. The reason that “people are dead” is not because four violent convicted felons (one illegally armed with a pistol) attached a 17-year-old. It’s all the 17-year-old’s fault for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

        The right to self defense is 100% location-dependent. That is a brilliant concept of “justice”.

        Oh, and it doesn’t matter that none of the four violent convicted felons should have been there. It doesn’t matter that they all should have been in prison. Nor does it matter that the rioters shouldn’t have been there.

        The only thing that matters is that the 17-year-old shouldn’t have been there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Exactly. He should have been home doing homework, not plotting to go out and be a “real man” and carry a gun to a freaking riot with the intent to kill people.

        He couldnt even vote yet…a virgin with a weapon, and you guys think incels are evil for doing the same thing this punk did.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You’re absolutely right, Jason. The right to self defense only applies when a person is home doing homework. That’s justice.

        Like

  10. cameron232 says:

    It’s weird how you argue. You just make stuff up putting arguments in peoples mouths. “So Rittenhouse now should be…” …like anyone said that. He was attacked and he shot. It happened to be a molester so that’s one less molester.

    Going to bed — good night.

    Like

    • Lastmod says:

      He came armed, packing heat looking for a fight. Murders someone who happens to be child molester……its strange how you justify people like him showing up at a riot to shoot people.

      Cries on the stand. He’s a hero now. Good night.

      Like

    • Jack says:

      “It’s weird how you argue.”

      LastMod is an expert at juxtaposing all kinds of different arguments from many different philosophical paradigms to arrive at the worst possible conclusions, and then he projects that onto others. Not sure if he’s trolling, being sarcastically ribald, or if he truly cannot distinguish the appropriate context.

      Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Not an expert an anything except seeing through double standards by christians, and a few useless skills like being able to look at a Beatles album and I can tell by the look of the vinyl if its an OG (original gangsta / pressing) versus one from the 1970’s and onward. Same with Pink Floyd and some 45 pressings as well. Useless.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Does it matter?

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      “It’s weird how you argue. You just make stuff up putting arguments in peoples mouths.” ~ Cameron

      “LastMod is an expert at juxtaposing all kinds of different arguments from many different philosophical paradigms to arrive at the worst possible conclusions, and then he projects that onto others.” ~ Jack

      Remember that next time Jason makes accusations, especially against fellow Christian men.

      Like

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

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

  13. 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