Did Eve have Agency?

Reconsidering an earlier assumption from the Serpent’s viewpoint.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Length: 700 words
Reading Time: 3.5 minutes

Deti, Sharkly, and others have cited the story of Adam and Eve as proof that women have agency.  It is reasoned that since God held her accountable, then she must have been morally accountable, and thus, she must have had moral agency.

But being held accountable doesn’t necessarily mean she did in fact possess agency.

In a follow up post, it was determined that moral agency is a result of having experience and being held accountable. Discipline and accountability is what helps build a sense of moral agency. The primary shortcoming in dealing with women today is that they are NOT held accountable and are therefore NOT developing agency. Although it is altogether proper for those who possess agency to be held accountable, accountability itself is not a result of possessing inherent faculties of agency.

So let’s reconsider the account of Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Of all the things that make women’s agency weak, e.g. ignorance, easily deceived, easily tempted, fleshly desire, solipsism, vanity, and so on, Eve’s fault was succumbing to temptation (Genesis 3:6) and deception, “the serpent deceived me and I ate” (Genesis 3:13).  Maybe discontentment could fit in there too.  If we take her statement as a true fact, then Eve’s response shows a level of introspection that is beyond that which we are used to seeing in modern women. If this is the case, then it seems she was pretty honest.  She didn’t resort to bulverizing, denial, gaslighting, hamsterbating, or any of the other defense tactics that we often see coming out of women.  (Maybe she did, but it is not recorded.)

I’m wary of the risks of reading deeper into the scripture, but it’s a matter of speculation whether she was being honest about being deceived or if she was always aware of her wrongdoing at some level and was shifting the blame. IOW, it’s hard to tell whether she was a willing accomplice or if she was truly scammed.

In addition to her statement, there are two other things that lend evidence that Eve was truly beguiled.

  1. Women are easily deceived. It’s hard to know whether this inherent weakness in women’s nature is a result of the Fall, or if women were like this in the pre-Edenic state.
  2. The serpent didn’t eat the fruit, but God held the serpent responsible and punished him.

If we look at what Eve did, not what she said, as per the usual Red Pill protocol for discerning the truth about women, then it is clear that no matter what the reason was, Eve failed to exercise agency at a critical moment and then all of mankind fell into sin.

Did anyone ever consider that maybe Eve didn’t have moral agency, or at least, not enough to restrain herself from swallowing, but that God held her accountable anyway?  If this were truly the case, then this might raise the objection that “God is not fair.”  But when we read through the rest of the Bible, where exactly do we see God being “fair”?  The unpleasant truth is that God is NOT “fair”, according to our human estimation of fairness.  God deals with each person individually.  God has his own concept of justice that is difficult for us humans to understand.

It is common for us to see Adam’s primary sin as joining Eve in eating the fruit.  But God said He punished Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree” (Genesis 3:17).  Note there are two reasons.  Have we ever considered that maybe…  Maybe his more egregious sin was in NOT holding Eve accountable, and this is what is implied by “heeding the voice of your wife” as opposed to him giving her a voice to heed — an inversion of authority.  His eating the fruit is mentioned second to this because it just made the situation all that much worse.

Who knows how things would have turned out if Adam had smacked the fruit out of her hand and imposed Frame?  All we know is that no one was held accountable until God stepped onto the scene, and by then it was too late.

Bottom line: If anything, the account of Adam and Eve shows that Eve did NOT have agency, and Eve’s lack of agency proved to be a weakness in Adam’s moral agency.

We’ll have to find another example of a woman exercising agency to make a solid case for women having agency, like Esther, Rahab, Ruth, or Sarah — and we would still have to recognize that even these examples would be extremely rare outliers.

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, Female Power, God's Concept of Justice, Holding Frame, Male Power, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Persuasion. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Did Eve have Agency?

  1. cameron232 says:

    It seems to me women can have a more difficult time exercising agency simply because of their greater reliance on emotion and what they often falsely call “intuition.” Didn’t the ancients see this as an indication of inferiority?

    They reason an act based on emotion. They construct narratives that define their reality based on emotion. They do these things to “validate” existing emotion. They do these things to drive the emotions they want. It is in this sense that women are the “weaker” sex to the Christian way of thinking. Not inferior. Weaker.

    It is harder to gain and exercise command of the will when emotions are not subordinate to reasoning from objective reality. Emotional, dissociative solipsism makes this harder for women on average than for men.

    Liked by 3 people

    • locustsplease says:

      I had to break it to a woman that she did in fact not have mothers intuition. And I broke down all the things you stated above. She was mystified that by giving birth she did not gain mind reading subtle supernatural powers others did not have. She was just rasing a kid and trying to do a good job and didn’t need to elevate herself above the rest of society with phony titles.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Maniac says:

    I think a better question would be: Did either of them have agency? They technically didn’t know right from wrong until after they ate the fruit.

    Sometimes I wish God hadn’t have planted that damn tree in the first place.

    Liked by 3 people

    • feeriker says:

      Hmmm, that is a good question. “Agency” as we define it is based on the ability to discern right from wrong. Adam and Eve were (supposedly) unfamiliar with those concepts at their creation, so it does prompt the question of whether or not agency existed in humanity at that time before the fall.

      On the other hand, the fact that God had made it clear to them that they were NOT to touch or eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, that commandment alone set a boundary between right and wrong within God’s moral order.

      Food for thought, most certainly.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Feeriker,

        “Hmmm, that is a good question. “Agency” as we define it is based on the ability to discern right from wrong.”

        Adam and Eve didn’t have to know right from wrong. They had to follow God’s instructions. They were culpable when they didn’t.

        Agency existed outside the knowledge of right and wrong. Agency existed for them in the form of trusting their father enough to do what he told them. Come to think of it, agency is a standard to be met or missed. It does not matter that we can’t meet it, hence our need for Christ, only that it is the standard to life by in order to be in God’s presence.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        RPA,

        “…agency is a standard to be met or missed. It does not matter that we can’t meet it, hence our need for Christ, only that it is the standard to life by in order to be in God’s presence.”

        I would say Moral Agency is one’s response to a standard, and this response can meet or miss the standard. I think it does matter whether we meet it or not, but it is Christ Who gives us the hope to do so.

        Like

      • lastholdout says:

        It was not a matter of “right or wrong” . . . it was a matter of obedience. This is where Christ was set apart as the new Adam . . . as He hung on the cross, it was His Father’s will to be done, not His own. Agency? Maybe that’s just a red herring.

        Like

  3. redpillboomer says:

    “Who knows how things would have turned out if Adam had smacked the fruit out of her hand and imposed Frame? All we know is that no one was held accountable until God stepped onto the scene, and by then it was too late.”

    This is one of the great “What If’s” of Scripture. It is really an unknown an unknowable thing, although I have heard a couple of preachers try to address it (explain it with conjecture), Adam maintaining frame so to speak. However, IMO, it’s really impossible to say what would have happened. He didn’t and the rest as they say is history… the fall, mankind’s need for redemption, etc.

    One thing I think we can derive from it for present day men, all this Red Pill content creator talk about maintaining frame over an extended period of time with the fallen “Eve’s” out there, good luck with that. Doubly so with the culture in agreement to back her “no accountability, no agency” up socially, legally, etc.

    Hence the importance of vetting women properly. Given that there is no foolproof way to do it, or maintain it as the years roll by; at least it gives the man an outside chance that maybe he can find a woman, especially one that has a legitimate faith and walk with Christ, that will enter his frame and grow with him. Tall, tall order these days.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Oscar says:

      “One thing I think we can derive from it for present day men, all this Red Pill content creator talk about maintaining frame over an extended period of time with the fallen “Eve’s” out there, good luck with that.”

      That’s why I keep saying that what holds people together is virtue. It’s not “game”, it’s not “frame”, it’s not looks, it’s not “visceral attraction”, it’s virtue.

      If you show weakness — we all do, because we’re all fatally flawed — and she’s not virtuous, she’s going to monkey-branch to a man she perceives to be stronger.

      That’s why the Bible advises men to marry virtuous women.

      It’s good to work on all the other stuff (leadership, fitness, finances, etc. ), but if she’s not virtuous, all that effort will be wasted. If Tom Brady isn’t “alpha” enough to hold on to a non-virtuous woman, then neither are you.

      Liked by 5 people

  4. Oscar says:

    “In a follow up post, it was determined that moral agency is a result of having experience and being held accountable.”
    ……
    “If anything, the account of Adam and Eve shows that Eve did NOT have agency…”

    Who determined? Because I disagree. That’s like saying that muscles are a result of exercise.

    That’s false.

    Your muscles are inherent to yourself. Exercise makes them stronger, it doesn’t create them. In fact, you can’t exercise muscles that aren’t already there. The fact that some people choose to never exercise their muscles in no way proves that they don’t have muscles to exercise.

    Likewise, exercising agency doesn’t create agency. It’s already there. It’s just weak and untrained. Exercise trains and strengthens agency, it doesn’t create it.

    The fact that some people (male and female) refuse to exercise agency in no way proves that they don’t have agency.

    As for the serpent, tempting others to sin is itself a sin. That’s why God punished him.

    Liked by 4 people

    • @ Oscar

      “Likewise, exercising agency doesn’t create agency. It’s already there. It’s just weak and untrained. Exercise trains and strengthens agency, it doesn’t create it.”

      Another good analogy may be rich kids who their parents don’t discipline them when they’re younger and use money to make their problems go away.

      They start doing bad things and have no accountability so it usually spirals into really bad stuff and they basically don’t know right from wrong and just blame other people.

      The fact that we teach kids right from wrong (including girls) shows that at least fully grown men and women — including Adam and Eve — have moral agency. How much can be debated perhaps with womens’ nature to be more easily deceived but they are definitely moral agents.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Likewise, exercising agency doesn’t create agency. It’s already there. It’s just weak and untrained. Exercise trains and strengthens agency, it doesn’t create it.”

        Wow! We’re still stuck on the fundamental question of whether women have moral agency or not!

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “We’re still stuck on the fundamental question of whether women have moral agency or not!”

        Who’s “we”? I’ve been saying since Dalrock’s that women have agency. It seems self-evidently obvious to me.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Jack

        If women will be judged and thrown into hell they will be held responsible no matter what we or they do. God treats them as morally accountable. So should we.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Info,

        “God treats them as morally accountable. So should we.”

        Yes, and men’s work is to hold them accountable in this life such to foster their sense of moral agency, so that their eternal judgment will be less severe. This is where the irony of accountability comes into play, as I described in a previous comment.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Jack,

        “…men’s work is to hold them accountable in this life such to foster their sense of moral agency…”

        Maybe it’s because I’m more practical than philosophical, but that’s the question that’s more interesting to me. How do we hold women accountable?

        That women possess moral agency seems like a foregone conclusion to me. So then the question becomes, “Great! Now what?”

        Like

  5. dave sora says:

    This idea that agency is developed by being held accountable must be right, because when you made the article on dogs I thought of cats. One of my cats used to steal the other cat’s food from their plates but after being held accountable many times he learned to wait for his own. So women just need to go through obedience school and not get a treat until they behave.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Dave Sora,

      “This idea that agency is developed by being held accountable must be right… […] …after being held accountable many times he learned to wait for his own. So women just need to go through obedience school and not get a treat until they behave.”

      Yes, I think it is like Oscar summarized:

      “Likewise, exercising agency doesn’t create agency. It’s already there. It’s just weak and untrained. Exercise trains and strengthens agency, it doesn’t create it.”

      The proper name for this potential agency is Latent Agency. Latent Agency is present. The problem is when MORAL Agency is never developed because of a lack of discipline / operant conditioning.

      Like

  6. Maniac says:

     Rabbi Harold Kushner has an alternative view. God’s response to Adam and Eve had they told the serpent to pound sand:

    “You will never have to work again… You will spend all your days in idle contentment… You will bear children without pain… They will need nothing from you. You will never cry and you will never laugh… You will never long for something you do not have, and you will never receive something you always wanted.”

    And the grass grew high around the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil until it disappeared from view because there was nobody to tend to it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Genesis 2:15 indicates Adam worked in Eden. But it was congenial, exciting, and satisfying.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “You will never long for something you do not have, and you will never receive something you always wanted.”

      Desire is known to be a very deep, strong, and motivating aspect of human nature. (This is not necessarily sexual desire, nor is it limited to sexual desire.) Kushner’s view calls into question whether desire itself is a product of the Fall.

      Desire is first mentioned in Genesis 3:6.

      Genesis 3:6-7 (ESV)
      6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

      In Genesis, it is unclear whether desire was preexistent, or whether desire was provoked through temptation. In the OP, I mentioned that discontentment may have been a part of Eve’s weakness, but again, it is unclear whether this was preexistent or not.

      I do believe desire is borne out of those certain things which are found to be missing in one’s spiritual life, and that unrequited desire and discontentment go hand in hand. Desire is usually what leads people into sin, but OTOH, desire is what God uses to draw people to Him as well.

      The former expression of desire is alluded to in NovaSeeker’s post, Viewpoints on Man’s Confusion about How God Works in the Life of a Believer (2021/3/29). The latter is outlined in The Three Step Path to God (2018/9/27), and I’ll add that it is impossible to have a vibrant spiritual life without the latter form of desire. It appears as though one of the big differences between belief and unbelief is in how one goes about satisfying one’s desires.

      If we apply the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy to this, we get the setup that I described in Harnessing the Motivations of Others (2022/4/20). This relies heavily on what DS covered in his post today, Trust, attraction, and the Biblical female marital roles of helper, submission, and respect Part 2 (2022/11/21).

      Like

  7. Scott says:

    The biggest question I would like to have answered on the first day of eternity is this.

    God was sitting around one day being big and awesome and all-knowing and all-present. So, He decides, “Hey, I think I will create a universe and place two people on this one planet. I know the outcome already, so after the fall, what will ensue is tragedy, injustice, murder, famine, war, literally millions of people will die for absolutely no reason due to starvation, natural disasters and genocide. About half-way through the story, I will send a savior version of myself to redeem those who will listen from the wretched state they are, even though there is no rational way for them to even know they are in it. But the war, injustice, etc won’t stop. Because the devil.”

    Why all of that? Why not just create a bunch of souls in heaven to keep you company and spare everyone the suffering? Was whatever existed before all this just really boring?

    This is not the same question as Job essentially asking, “Why me?” It’s “Why any of it?”

    If God’s sovereignty is real, then Eve did not have agency. Neither did Pharaoh when God told Moses he would “harden his heart” and not let the people go. Neither did quite a few of the main characters of the story arc.

    Just curious.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      Does Jason/Lastmod have agency? Constantly vacillating between the throes of his post-addiction mood swings, the anger he rightly feels about not even being given a chance to have a nuclear family because of whatever personality and other traits he inherited, plus whatever environmental components conspired to stunt his development on the psychosexual trajectory? Down inside somewhere is a kind man. I have looked into his eyes and seen him.

      On the other hand, what did I do to deserve a more or less easy life? I mean sure, my ex smashed my heart all to pieces, but its not like I was tortured in a concentration camp or anything. My dad endured that and came here so I could be born in peace and tranquility, free to chase girls and collect college degrees. Everything I touch pretty much turns to gold and I have no idea why. I just walk around in my life and things usually turn out for me.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        What moral choices does Deti have, who by all accounts pushed all the right buttons on the “how to be a man and do life right” ticket? Went to law school, is committed to his family and is married to a woman who’s personality and character deficits he has to “endure” pretty much until one of them is dead.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Psychoanalyzing God, based upon your own medical background, and your personal speculations about what He is doing, and why He is doing it, may be a trained habit, but it seems rather hubristic, even to me. Especially since the secular medical field clearly doesn’t have the answer, and is gradually moving from pushing SSRIs and benzodiazepines, which actually do nothing to cure their patients, to now recommending that their patients sign up to be euthanized. You can read about it at this link:
        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-11-22/canadian-government-literally-proposes-state-execution-living-babies

        If you understood everything, you wouldn’t have FAITH, but would have REASON instead. God wants us to have “childlike faith”.

        If you want some secular reasoning, Pascal’s Wager, is probably as solid a reason as you’re going to find to live a Godfearing life. The just shall live by faith.

        Trusting your Creator makes this life mentally easier than trying to make a liar and a villain out of God, based upon your own corrupted understanding, and if I’m correct that same exercised faith will setup the next life to be easier as well. Even though you may not like that God didn’t feel the need to answer Job’s questions at that time, you should still be able to take solace that at least God is not histrionic and did not feel compelled to justify Himself to His faultfinder.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Meh

        Unquestioning, unflinching faith that starts from the presupposition that existence was necessary at all is no fun for me. It means you haven’t earned it.

        I do not believe God is a psychopath. I have faith that He isn’t. If He is keeping the reason for all this a secret from all of us for reasons we can’t fathom, that’s fine.

        But I’m still allowed to wonder about it.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Also, here, again, you are in way over your head. But that’s not possible, because genius or something.

        I actually went and read the Zero Hedge article, and the link to the Psychology Today article contained within. And for at least the second time since you have been posting on here, you mistake me (a psychologist) for a psychiatrist.

        To help you out.

        Psychiatrist = MD or DO with a specialty (residency) in psychiatry

        Psychologist = PhD in psychology

        There is no evidence that psychologists en masse or their professional organization is pushing euthanasia on anyone, anywhere. Also, the writer of the Zero Hedge article insinuates that psychiatrists are doing so with a really transparent and weak rhetorical device. He says the governments that are pushing assisted suicide are tacitly acknowledging that psychiatry/psychopharmacology have failed to adequately identify, and treat depression and anxiety. That’s a pretty big leap to “the entire field is for [state assisted suicide].”

        Never mind that.

        The article WITHIN the article is written by a psychologist and it is a fairly uncontroversial position he is taking by arguing that depression is not the function of a chemical imbalance. I can’t think of one psychiatrist who disagrees with this on the whole. What “causes” depression is debatable, and that debate has been going on for a really long time. Psychiatrists treat depression and anxiety symptoms when they prescribe medications. All of them know this.

        All of this has more to do with the various conceptualizations that different medical and behavioral health providers have of these disorders. Is depression just a list of symptoms that hang together in factorial analysis? Or is there something deeper to it? I am sure your considerable IQ will be used to enlighten us all on this question. God knows, I have no idea after 20 years of doing it with about 50,000 clinical contact hours dealing with them.

        SSRIs do a pretty good job of treating the physiological symptoms of depression, for example. The appetite disturbances, low energy, psychomotor agitation/slowing, etc. But they are not so good with the purely psychological symptoms like anhedonia, guilt, low mood. And on suicidality, they are a mixed bag. The prevailing theory about why suicide risk sometimes increases with SSRIs is because the person now has the energy to do something about it. (They are activating).

        None of this means that depression is “caused” by a chemical imbalance. (The central theme of the linked article-within-the-article you shared) What it SOMETIMES means is that patients on SSRIs can get some relief from the symptoms that make it difficult to even get up in the morning while they actually work the issue that is the underlying driver of their depression. (Or anxiety). The patient has to decide if they can tolerate whatever side effects it comes with. That’s between them and their psychiatrist which is, again, not me.

        Me? Everyone here knows what I think. On the diathesis-stress continuum, I fall WAY over on the “nature” side. I think people are born with a predisposition, inherited from their parents. Dog breed have a temperament. And so do people. The environment immediately goes to work on them, and in about 18-25 years, viola! You have the person you are. I call them “anxiety” or “depression” flavored people. GOOD therapy can help them work through this stuff and hopefully gain insight into the behaviors that are most troubling to them. But they will ALWAYS have those core personality traits to fight against. In a perfect scenario, this is called “maturity,” which includes a whole bunch of growth and recognizing your own limitation and boundaries.

        My faith tells me that this problem was created by sin in the world, ultimately. And all of that is what causes me to wonder if the hassle of creation was worth it at all. It’s not me being a rebellious child. I am just curious about the world I was born into.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Scott, is SPS, sensory processing sensitivity, aka highly sensitive person a real thing or a hokey concept?

        I’ve been taking a bunch of supplements. Lots of articles on serotonin uptake, GABA, magnesium supplements. Probably wasting my money on a witches brew of pills.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        There’s evidence that factors other than serotonin may be at play. And that alternative treatments may help. I haven’t paid too much attention to Jordan Peterson but he’s had a big focus on diet. Also SSRIs may help through effects not related to serotonin.

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-modern-brain/202207/if-serotonin-doesnt-cause-depression-then-what-does

        https://thewearychristian.com/diet-gut-bacteria-depression/

        https://thewearychristian.com/still-a-medical-condition-about-that-study-on-serotonin-and-depression/

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Cameron,

        Every once in a while, a new construct is supposedly identified by academic behavioral scientists. It is important to recognize that no matter how fancy the statistical analysis they use to prop up the existence of it, the academic world is driven by rejecting the null hypothesis. (Writing articles that tend to confirm the existence of something you think you discovered). No one wants to publish or read articles that say “we thought we found something, but darn it, there’s nothing here.”

        (On a side note, this problem was the driving engine behind the reproducibility crisis).

        SPS appears to be a sliver, or piece of data along the Autism Spectrum and will probably just be folded into it, if it makes understanding that stuff more parsimonious.

        Its relatively new in the process of validation. So, if it turns out to be something, we will see.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Interesting – it’s claimed that SPS is a trait not a disorder and they claim to have found the underlying genes.

        Sasha Baron Cohen I believe sees autism as the extreme male brain along the systemizing-empathy dimension.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “Also, here, again, you are in way over your head. But that’s not possible, because genius or something.”

        You still sound triggered by my claim in a previous post that I had genius level IQ. My test scores speak for themselves. And I think you’re the one in over your head, believing far too much of your quasi-scientific field’s nonsense de jour. I think it’s arrogant for the dupes in a hokey field that can’t get even half of their most “groundbreaking research studies” to repeat, to claim that they alone get to say who possesses genius, when real genii generally avoid such largely opinion-based fields like psychology. But what would I expect from a confused man who thinks his “evolution science” buddies have proven their Creator to be a liar, yet still trust’s that Creator will save him.

        As to the article I linked, I wasn’t claiming that represents the current status quo in your industry, but I was hoping smart folks would spot that the groundwork has been laid to start an unwelcomed new trend of moving on from their marginally effective past methods into recommending “doctor” assisted suicide for patients they lack the know-how to help. Although I don’t think that, semantically, somebody who intentionally kills people should be called a “doctor”. They’re more accurately a “mercenary”.

        As to your philosophy questions that you wrestle with, although I haven’t read his work, I’ve heard a lot of knowledgeable people recommend C.S. Lewis’s books on philosophy. That would probably be a good place to start, if you’ve already read the whole Bible a few times.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        HAHAHAHAHA

        “You still sound triggered by my claim in a previous post that I had genius level IQ. My test scores speak for themselves.”

        You seem deeply psychologically invested in my acknowledgment that you are a genius.

        Calling out B.S. ≠ “triggered”.

        And in your wall of sophistry, you did not make the case that the entire mental profession is full of “dupes in a hokey field”, nor that on the whole it is endorsing assisted suicide en masse (or laying the groundwork for it).

        Good try though, genius.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “You seem deeply psychologically invested in my acknowledgment that you are a genius.”

        LOL Not at all, otherwise I’d have just emailed you my test results. But I still don’t think you’d acknowledge the truth, based upon your past performance. The last time we argued, and I emailed you privately, quite tellingly you never responded. You clearly don’t care for the facts, nor would you likely ever acknowledge my genius, you just want to vent online, without your own BS repeatedly getting called out by me. I personally don’t care what you think. I don’t suffer hardly at all from insecurities like you have previously said that you do.

        I merely made one comment in response to Derek, https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2022/11/20/near-death-experience/#comment-230340
        and suddenly you were off to the races with your schtick about how only you get to decide who’s a genius, and you don’t think I’m one. LOL And you still can’t seem to drop it, bringing it up yet again on a different post. So, it isn’t I who am so highly invested in continuing this discussion. Nor would you accept any proof I can provide.

        A man convinced against his will
        is of the same opinion still.

        So, I’m still perfectly fine if you want to think I’m not a genius, your thoughts don’t change my reality.

        My later point was that your unscientific profession hubristically tries to claim that they are the sole arbiters of who possesses genius. Even though nobody but you seems to care whether people have real standardized test scores to prove their genius, or just a letter from their shrink. If somebody wanted to convince me that they were a genius, standardized test scores would carry far more weight with me, than a letter from a shrink they hired. But it really doesn’t matter, the proof is in the pudding. How well do they employ their brains for good or for evil?

        The only reason I’m moved to respond, is not because you’ll change your mind, nor do I care what people think of my IQ, but because you’ve publicly questioned my honesty, and with zero evidence you’ve basically called me a liar. You’ve done this before, and I don’t know if it is projection, or why you think I would waste my time to lie online, but I have no need to lie to anyone. And when I’ve backed up my assertions in the past, you still never concede the point.

        But I am a servant of God, and I teach some doctrines online, so even though I may joke a lot, I care to keep my reputation for complete honesty intact. And with zero evidence you try to make me into a liar, and claim I’m not being truthful, and that only you can speak truthfully regarding genius. That’s rightly detestable.

        I have little respect for your feelings-based profession, and like many things in society, your profession is steadily getting worse. You yourself has indicated a preference for parts of DSM-4 over the newer DSM-5. Recently the APA has officially libeled traditional masculinity. Half of why your profession exists is because the churches have largely dropped the ball and are unable to provide the sound counsel and the sound discipline they should.

        Anyhow, in case you want to know why it is hard for me to respect you personally it is for many reasons. Here are some:

        You seemingly try to glamorize fornication, and despite your protestations to the contrary, you don’t come off as repentant. You still try to minimize and make excuses for your wickedness, while wickedly teaching that fornication is somehow a developmental aid to men, when it isn’t, and it never cured your own unwarranted insecurities.
        Even though he only quit his fornication more recently, Roosh V. seems to write like somebody who is repentant. https://www.rooshv.com/
        I believe he’s part of your denomination, or a close one. He doesn’t write of his time of fornication as if it were his glory days, he always acknowledges the wickedness of it, that it was the result of his own foolishness and fallenness, that it is by nature idolatrous, and that it is highly destructive.
        You lack faith in God. You will openly question Him, call him psychological names, and claim He too has lied to us about how he created mankind. But there too you’d rather vent online, and possibly spread your unbelief, than read the many great books on those topics supporting God’s truthfulness. I’d be far more open to your faithless comments if you didn’t claim to be Christian, or a good church member, or otherwise make some claim to be redeemed. I have very different standards for unbelievers, and for those who claim to be brothers in Christ.
        I’m not a fan of your “black pill” defeatist rhetoric. (probably stems from your lack of faith) Even though I’m not saying that any specific thing about the black-pill is wrong, people usually draw the wrong plan of action, or inaction, from such defeatist talk.
        You shared horrible workout advice about how you were working out 18 hours a week, mostly running, for two decades and eating a highly restricted diet like a bodybuilder’s contest-prep diet, and still were not gaining much muscle nor seeing your abs. But yet you were recommending that, like others should do the same. You claimed it was due to your body type. When I tried to explain how you were chronically elevating your cortisol with so much running, which in turn decreases your testosterone, and your lackluster results were what anyone would get from that same regime, you only got offended and more stubborn. When I said that I got a similar looking body from only one hour a week of lifting, and recommended some SARMs like Ostarine and Ligandrol, you seemed impervious to recognizing a more reasonable approach that would work for most middle-aged men, without as much time-consuming effort, and again you tried to claim I was a liar. Over at Deep Strength’s site, when I finally put a picture up, you took yours down. LOL However then later you wrote that while recovering from a surgery you ran less and lifted more and took some SARMs and were looking more muscular than ever before. But never did you ever admit that I’d “lovingly” tried to explain that stuff to you previously. You seem rather resistant to sound teaching, holding to your erroneous beliefs stubbornly. Never quick to admit when you’ve gone wrong.
        Your instinct seems to be to falsely accuse your betters, as if you’re the best there can be. 😉 LOL Just accept yourself, and better yourself for your own edification, you’re a special creation with your own purpose, you won’t be the best at everything. And that’s fine. OK, point #5 here, was just for my own entertainment. LOL

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Sharkly,

        Your comment is 1,128 words long. That’s worthy of a post over at your site.

        Violations to the comment policy:

        1– Comments that are grossly off topic.
        4– Personal attacks or profane insults against other commenters.
        7– Making assumptions or accusations about whether anyone is a “true believer”, or a “born again Christian” or not.

        Another infraction and you’ll be placed back on moderation.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Back on topic: What sort of agency do the mentally troubled have? Who cares ‘eh? The Canadian’s socialized medical industry will lure and then pressure them into suicide/euthanasia. The slippery slope is a tough adversary. I saw my first suicide commercial today. Wakey wakey, Sleepers. Don’t think it couldn’t happen here. Open your peepers and see the laying of the groundwork for it. You can’t fight it, if you stay in denial.

        Don’t say I didn’t warn y’all.

        Like

    • caterpillar345 says:

      The story of Pharaoh always bothered me for that reason. It happened several times through the course of the plagues — that “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” It’s like he didn’t have a choice in the matter. Did Judas Iscariot have agency when he betrayed Christ, even though it was prophesied that he (or one of the disciples) would?

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        IDK but I’ll speculate. All things are God’s will but we distinguish between God’s positive and God’s permissive will. God allowed pharaoh to harden his heart which was used to serve God’s purposes. The OT didn’t explicitly distinguish between the two. Nor does the NT in the case of Judas Iscariot.

        Like

      • Joe2 says:

        Didn’t John Calvin address and answer those questions? It’s all been predetermined, except we don’t know that as we live. God has already selected those who will believe and those who won’t. It’s predestination and the belief that God’s rewards for humans have already been selected. Thus, no one has agency or a choice. Very depressing theology.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Read the whole story. Count how many times and when the Bible says, “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened”, versus how many times and when it says, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”.

        Come back and share what you found.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        The question I’m asking is larger than what percentage of Pharaoh’s hardened heart was accounted for his own willfulness and what percentage was due to Gods sovereign power over it.

        That would be an exercise in academic theology that drives me crazy, and ultimately drove me out of the seminary.

        Pharaoh’s story is a tiny wrinkle in the fabric. It is a bizarre footnote in the way larger question I’m going to asking someday.

        Why ANY of this?

        No human alive, past, present or future ever asked to be born. None of us volunteered to be a part of this grand design. No infant slaughtered in an Aztec ritual, no Tutsi machetied to pieces in Rwanda.

        The closest thing to an answer I have ever heard was “the creation exists to glorify God.”

        If that’s it, God is a maniacal, mass-murdering, narcissistic psychopath.

        “I’m going to create this world and it’s immense suffering to demonstrate how awesome I am!”

        I’m REALLY hoping that’s not the answer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Not to keep citing him as my authority but I don’t think Lewis believed the creation would glorify God. What glory could man add to God?

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Humans are part of “creation”

        Psalm 19 and Psalm 148 are entirely about how the natural world and the “heavens” (stars, moon, sky) declare his greatness.

        This as close to a “reason” for the existence of the creation I’ve ever come across.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        IDK – I guess it “declares his greatness” to man. That would still make it something done for man’s sake (out of love) and not something that adds to God himself. I really need to reread The Problem of Pain and take notes. It’s a short book.

        What does your Serbian priest say about this stuff?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        A common reason I see is it was an act of pure love. Try reading the book by Lewis. It’s only 150 pages. You may retain more than I did.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Well of course it declares His glory to man. But man didn’t exist before it was created.

        So create a lesser being in a habitat that the lesser being will be impressed by? How weird. Especially with all the previously mentioned gratuitous pain and suffering attached to it.

        Or to impress himself? Narcissism.

        Or does God have a God that He is showing off for?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Ok stick with the love explanation then.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        When I was 11 they forced me to go to a holiness church. I decided something like apocatastasis must be true. I guess the bliss of eternity would infinitely outweigh the suffering even for the macheted Tutsi kid. And the suffering would have a point for all people.

        But the worm dieth not and my church won’t let me believe that idea.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott,

        “The question I’m asking is larger than what percentage of Pharaoh’s hardened heart was accounted for his own willfulness and what percentage was due to Gods sovereign power over it.”

        I’m not arguing about percentages.

        “That would be an exercise in academic theology that drives me crazy, and ultimately drove me out of the seminary.”

        I never went to seminary.

        “Pharaoh’s story is a tiny wrinkle in the fabric. It is a bizarre footnote in the way larger question I’m going to asking someday.”

        But it’s very instructive. As I keep saying, the Bible teaches both predestination and free will, oftentimes in the same passage. Pharaoh’s story is one of those passages. No one knows how to resolve that paradox because we’re all incapable of comprehending it. People far smarter than any of us have been arguing about that paradox since at least Job. That was 5,000 years ago. If we were capable of comprehending that question (much less the answer), we’d have figured it out by now.

        Which brings me to…

        “Why ANY of this?”

        No one knows. None of us is capable of understanding.

        Here’s what I do when I run into questions about God that I’m incapable of understanding. Maybe you’ll find it useful. In this case, I ask myself the following questions.

        Why did you bring your children into existence? You knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they’d suffer, and they didn’t ask for life, so why give it to them? How many decisions have you made that they not only couldn’t understand, but were incapable of understanding? Did you expect them to trust you anyway as their father? Did you expect them to behave morally anyway? You’re a fatally flawed, severely limited human. If you can expect your children to trust you as their father when they can’t understand why you make the decisions you make (even when you’re wrong), then why can’t you trust your Heavenly Father?

        That’s what Jesus meant when He said we need to have faith like a child.

        I hope that helps.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Here, I’ll go down this rabbit hole for a minute, but only to demonstrate why these kinds of “angels dancing on the head of a pin” discussions eventually make my eyes glaze over.

        If, and I will take your word for it, you are not suggesting there is a continuum of responsibility for Pharaoh’s heart hardening, where Pharaoh hardened his own heart on one end, and God doing it on the other, then I don’t know what this means:

        “Read the whole story. Count how many times and when the Bible says, “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened”, versus how many times and when it says, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”.

        It appears to be asking the reader to count up the ratio of one to the other, for a particular reason. I would rationalize that the reason is, there is some degree of shared responsibility between God and Pharaoh on the hardening of the heart issue.

        But even beyond that, this:

        “Pharaohs heart was hardened” is ambiguous, at least in English. It is not clear by the plain text who did the hardening here. So, one must find the context by broadening outward to more and more surrounding verses and even the entire Bible if necessary. Or look at the Hebrew, and everyone thinks they know what the original language means.

        I no longer claim to be able to understand these things, reading a text that is thousands of years old. 200 some-odd years after the constitution, half of the scholars who analyze it come up with wildly differing opinions about the context, what the writer intended to convey, etc. And it was at least written in our language. You don’t have to go to seminary to see how mind-numbing this is. It’s just that seminary breeds it. Fosters it. And some walk away feeling quite perturbed by it. But every Bible study with a bunch of miniature theologians gathered around the text with their pet beliefs about what they think the text means is a little version of it. Seminary is the formalized version of this.

        Also, the answer Job got was, “Where were you when I created all this?”

        Which is fine, if you’re 7.

        But if I tried that on my 13-year-old, she would quip, “Oh. So you don’t actually have an answer.” And she would be right. I would be using the “because I am the boss and I said so” argument.

        I had kids because it is what we are commanded to do in marriage. An act of faith. On balance, no-kids would be much less complicated and I could have way more self-fulfillment. But I cannot answer the question, if they ever ask, “Why did you have me?” in a way that makes rational sense.

        All I am hoping for is clarity on the issue of “Why create it at all?”, especially since I am being as obedient a servant as I can without this knowledge. I think it will all be clear in the end, in fact, I have to have faith that it will, or I would stop and start playing for the atheist team the next minute.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I had children because I loved my wife (and her pro-natalist instincts) and because I wanted to create little people to love. And because my dad did a real swell job of making me feel loved.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        All of those are true and real reasons to have kids. I have the same ones.

        But this presumes that the child would retroactively be glad you did. I know lots people who if given the chance would chose to not ever be born.

        From a purely rational perspective, this is a huge risk to take with someone else’s life.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah women sure as hell aren’t purely rational and neither are men. When my wife seduced me for our 7th child I wasn’t being purely rational. When she told me right before we made #6, “You know if we do this I’m going to get pregnant”, I was thinking with “muh’ nads.”

        Now if God is the Mormon God we could say this is the case for him too. For our God? IDK… Maybe in the end all people will be glad to have been born?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        That would be one way that my faith over the years will have been “worth it”.

        It’s up to God how that happens.

        My faith in the end, is a faith that one day in eternity all these wrongs will be righted. I just don’t know how.

        Liked by 3 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        “I think it will all be clear in the end, in fact, I have to have faith that it will, or I would stop and start playing for the atheist team the next minute.”

        Scott — thanks for this answer and the discussion preceding it. I think I have a similar question you do. (“Why make any of it? Why bother doing anything, in a meta-sense?”) and the more I try to figure it out, the more it seems the ability to move forward in life comes down to deciding to either believe something like what you said, or to not.

        It’s a little disillusioning because when I was growing up, I had the assumption that everyone around me in my church community had some kind of assurance that I just couldn’t see. Or that if they didn’t, it was out there somewhere that I could “find.” But that doesn’t really seem to be the case. “Deciding” to believe something doesn’t seem like assurance to me — it seems like a personal choice.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Here, I’ll go down this rabbit hole for a minute, but only to demonstrate why these kinds of “angels dancing on the head of a pin” discussions eventually make my eyes glaze over.

        My point is the exact opposite of an “angels dancing on the head of a pin” argument.

        My point is that we’re incapable of understanding the answer to the question, just like a toddler is incapable of understanding the answers to some of the questions he asks. When that happens, we can either choose to trust our heavenly Father, like we expect our children to trust us, or not.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I think C. S. Lewis provides plausible answers in The Problem of Pain. It’s just been a long time since I read it.

      What little I remember. God is in the eternal present. All our decisions, including the ones to resist or cooperate with grace are immediate to God. It’s in this sense that He foresees all. Catholicism calls this Molinism.

      God can’t do “anything.” Not because He lacks the power. God can’t do nonsensical things, abstractions of the human mind. Non-entities, mathematical null set, whatever.

      A subset of this is that God cannot create free beings without the possibility of evil. It’s not just the flesh — the angels in heaven could choose evil.

      God is trying to make us perfectly lovable. For our sake not His.

      Could God have made a different world? Why even speculate?

      “Don’t dream of worlds that never were — the end is all that’s ever true.” ~ St. Robert Smith

      Like

      • Scott says:

        From the Cure?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yep! I figured you’d appreciate that but I botched the lyrics a bit.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        My favorite Cure song is “close to me” but has to be the one with the horn duet at the end. All other versions are crap.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        If an automaton loves. Is it true love? If obedience is a programmed response, is it true obedience?

        True relationships aren’t possible without True Agency.

        Liked by 4 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        “True relationship isn’t possible without True Agency.”

        I think this really gets to the heart of the question of Agency.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “Why even speculate [?]”

        Because I have to be here.

        No one alive was consulted before they existed on whether or not they want to participate. That gives every human alive the right to ask the question.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “That gives every human alive the right to ask the question.”

        That’s pretty much what Job said. I’m pretty sure we’ll get a similar answer.

        Like

    • naturallyaspirated says:

      Love between conscious entities reaches its true nature in glory only when it is freely chosen.

      When a creature that could choose self-will instead voluntarily gives that will to someone else, Love reaches its potential. This is why God created creatures that can do evil or turn away from him and others. There is no other way to achieve true love in the universe. Evil is the price we pay for real love to exist.

      It’s actually quite a burden placed on us all. The price paid in suffering throughout history is allowed to exist so that we can freely choose goodness. It’s actually quite a burden or responsibility on each of us and our daily choices. When I don’t choose goodness, love, and truth, the suffering of humanity has been in vain.

      Liked by 5 people

    • info says:

      If you read the Exodus account Pharaoh hardened his heart several times himself before God hardened his heart.

      When God said he will harden Pharoah’s Heart before Moses spoke with Pharoah he was making a prediction of what he will do in future after Pharoah hardened his own heart first.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        In the text, the ratio of “God hardened” to “Pharaoh hardened” references is roughly 9:1, so I wonder what hermeneutic principle to apply there.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Oscar,

        Unless God explicitly says like at certain times in the Bible that he will do all the fighting for you.

        Or to do things impossible for us to do individually. Like Geopolitical events and so forth.

        Generally Prayer is a Force Multiplier. Its like calling for the Airforce and Artillery. And God loading the dice in our favor.

        Enemies aren’t cleared away for us. But they are cut down to size and made possible to overcome.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      I’ve answered this question before. Info is right. Read the whole story, not just the verses where God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Pharaoh hardened his own heart multiple times before God hardened it.

      Pharaoh had agency.

      Eve had agency.

      Jason has agency.

      Deti has agency.

      We all have agency.

      We’re all limited in our agency. There are things we can control, things we can influence, and things over which we have zero influence or control. Wisdom lies in categorizing things accurately, and behaving accordingly.

      I like the way Dave Ramsey puts it. Work like it all depends on you, and pray like it all depends on God.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Lastmod says:

    Spent an exhausting last two hours at work with the Los Angeles County Recycling Czar (grade-A assh*le, but sigh…good looking, young…top notch looking head of hair. Bad tie though with his suit. His gf must have selected it for him……). A State Assembly Bill was passed a few months ago in Sacramento, and all businesses starting January 1, 2023 have to separate all food waste, paper waste, and food that could be “recoverable” (whatever the eff that means)

    My managers at my respected properties all called me “what do we do???”

    Most of my properties do not have room in their trash rooms for the additional bins and my janitorial staff at all the properties will have to bring them down to the main trash rooms (in some cases that is a quarter mile, elevator navigation / use and then bring them back up to each respected floor. Also empty them on off days because we all know how food waste smells after a day or so. One of my properties is 26 stories with four trash rooms on each floor….lets not even touch the two shopping mall / retail properties)

    The rest of my team of fellow managers has a blaze attitude about it…..they dont care. When the fines rack up, they will. This is a way again for the state / city and county to garnish more money…..and we have to pay for the bins too!

    I was respectful for the fact that HE came to see ME. I didnt have to go down to City Hall to see HIM. My reputation obviously is getting a little bit known in some circles in this fair city and county.

    He basically told me I could pay an extension fee per property for an extension of one year or push paperwork for a case-by-case for a temporary exemption until plans were implemented per property.

    He was shocked when I told him I would do the latter. “You are going to submit how many applications? With notation, and all the other requirements to my office by December 31?

    I told him I would, and when I do “I expect all of them to be granted.”

    He thinks I am bluffing. He told me over and over, that the process is long and takes a lot of time and “just pay the extension fee” and “just order the bins” (once we have the bins we must comply or be subject to fines if a grain of rice is in the wrong bin or something like that)

    I kept quoting the process, his own office’s process and he said “he would not promise anything if I submitted case by case” (more work for his staff, he would be compelled by statute to investigate.

    He made some smart-alec remark as he left.

    I did get the last word “I like how the city, county and federal offices are exempt from this until further notice, I’ll make your staff rue the day you pulled this on the drivers of the economy, expect a pile of paperwork to drop from tomorrow until December 31. Better not take the day after Christmas off”

    Called me a jerk after after he shut the door. My admin came in and actually laughed “You’re a real bastard Jay”

    I winked “I hate bureaucrats, lets get to work. Tell management staff at all properties not to worry. I got this.”

    Drove home on the Ventura Freeway 134 blasting Stevie Nicks “If Anyone Falls” from 1983 cigarette clenched and feeling great. How’s that for agency? 🙂

    .

    Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      You have your own admin? Sounds like you’re doing pretty well. Been with the same company for 20+ years and I don’t have an admin.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Yeah. She’s 26. Blonde. Average looking (but she thinks she is very, very hot). She’s been with a few of the guys here in the office (hook up wise). Its kinda hush-hush. I dont care….as long as you are dressed appropriately for work, and you do the job and you are at work on time, and back from lunch on time.

        Her boyfriend is manager at some sort of finance company in Studio City. He’s okay. She is good. I wish she knew shorthand. I told her that skill would get her into executive and high corporate management if she knew that. That is where really good money is if you are an admin.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        My job is okay…..its slowly changing and being “offshored”

        25-30 years ago, this position was actually considered an upper management / almost Yuppie in actual wages. Since the late 1990’s the wages in for management tier one and two levels has been declining in property management. Add cost of living over the years and now….the position demands a lot and the pay isnt as competetive or lucrative as it was.

        Some national companies now are “offshoring” meaning when you call the company number, you get a call center in India, Israel or Australia. For budegting and accounting, we have third party companies in India or the Philippines handle it…where it used to be in house. Also, when we contract or vendor out…third party companies in India usually act like the magnet and find the vendors, or setup bid and then submit them back to us. For example, a roofing job I had a property last year (1.1 milion dollars of work). I called up our contract vendor, and she handles the whole thing, submitting of bids, specs….. Whereas in 1992, or 1999, or 2006 the tier level two manager would handle that bidding process, and submission.

        I make 87K now. In LA County you’re doing “eh average” and well…..I should take my skills and move to Missouri and do the same work…even with the cost of living difference and taxes, the wage falls even lower. In Omaha Nebraska, or Ft Wayne Indiana my wage would be 37K before taxes

        Try buying a house on one income with that even in those markets.

        More work is being demanded, wages are declining and productivity is expected to go up. This model cannot be sustained either. Hence why all the smaller or more local companies got swallowed up in the 1990’s and early 2000’s by the bigger companies. They just could no longer compete or the cost analysis and profit margin was too razor thin.

        Its a rewarding job for me. I like it. I am good at it, and someone took a chance on me back in 2018 for this type of work. It was a way out of wage-slave poverty that I was stuck in, and was sinking in, and I couldnt get out.

        Its probably the best i can get or do at this point for my age and past, and wasted time / time lost. I am grateful. Hence why I bust at harder 10x than anyone else in this place.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        37K per year is a ridiculously low wage to offer someone to take on that level of responsibility, even if it’s in a lower cost of living area. My 21 year old son was making $39K per year putting windows together in a factory in a low cost of living midwest area. And it was part time (12 hours, 3 days a week). I don’t see how they could get someone to do management work for that cheap. I’d just do a low stress, mindless job. He made more at a potato chip factory in Utah where he worked for awhile.

        Like

      • locustsplease says:

        @lastmod basic laborers make $20per hour I’m talking anybody in omaha. I pay skilled laborers $35. The average income is 70k per year. Before the covid housing bubble you could live well on that money. Omaha has more millionaires per capita of any town its size in america. My sister lives in LA and is in poverty refuses to move back we have no idea. She lived in a Walmart parking lot for months.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        As always, Jason’s “reasoning” amounts to “can’t win, may as well not try”. Let’s look at some facts.

        In Omaha Nebraska, or Ft Wayne Indiana my wage would be 37K before taxes

        Tell me you didn’t even bother to look without saying that you didn’t even bother to look.

        Indeed.com lists multiple property management positions around Omaha. One commercial property management position lists a salary range of $65k – $78k / year. An apartment property management position lists a salary range of $45k – $55k / year. So yeah, Jason would make less in Omaha than in LA, but potentially not by much.

        What about cost of living?

        Bestplaces.net lists LA County’s cost of living as 161.7, and Omaha’s cost of living as 89.8. The national average is 100. For more concrete numbers, the median home price in LA County is $754,400, while the median home price in Omaha is $239,900.

        I make 87K now.

        That means that the median home price in LA county = 8.67x Jason’s current salary.

        The median home price in Omaha would be between 5.33x to 3.06x Jason’s potential salary in Omaha.

        That means that – even at the lower end of potential salary – Jason would be better off in Omaha than he is in LA.

        But, Jason has also said that he doesn’t own a house now. He rents a one bedroom apartment.

        According to zumper.com, the average rent for a one bedroom apartment in LA is $2,445/month. That is 33.7% of Jason’s monthly salary.

        According to zumper.com, the average rent for a one bedroom apartment in Omaha is $990/month. That would be between 26.4% to 15.2% of Jason’s potential monthly salary in Omaha.

        Again, even at the lower end of his potential salary, Jason would be better off in Omaha than he is in LA.

        Add to that California’s tax burden (the worst in the country), and Omaha looks even better.

        Jason plays the victim, and pretends that he has no options, or no better options (i.e., no agency), but in reality Jason has better options. He just refuses to exercise his better options, then blames everyone but himself for the negative outcomes of his choices.

        Sound familiar?

        Like

  9. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  10. cameron232 says:

    OT for the post if not the Sigma Frame website. Paging Jim of Jim’s blog. Handmaid’s Tale (“A book for midwit, fast-life-history-strategist feminists”).

    62% of women have r@pe fantasies, and 14% have them weekly?!!! Am I the only one who finds this really depressing / disturbing? The woman’s body fighting off the sperm until one gets through and impregnates her is itself a metaphor for r@pe?

    Maybe a little NAWALT in there – the more r-strategist women are, the more they’re like this, the more K-strategist, the less. Unstable environment increases r-strategy and then there’s genes.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      I have heard, from almost every woman I’ve been with, some version of:

      “I prefer it when you just take. I don’t like it when you ask.”

      Users Note: The usual caveat applies. If she already thinks you are hot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        *note number two. “Every woman” includes the entire spectrum from good Christian girls to sleezey tatted up F-buddies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Right. If you’re not perceived as hawt you come off as “some retarded strutting rooster” as you so aptly put it.

        Like

  11. Pingback: Deti on Female Accountability | Σ Frame

  12. Lastmod says:

    Sharkly,

    I mean…what did anyone expect? Red Pill calls incels, MGTOW, Black Pill “losers” and not real men. The church hates single men…but shower love on a family with nice teeth and a pretty wife……husband who is held as the model to the all single woman as “this man you must have”

    Sex is the most important thing in the world. You’re not getting any you’re missing out and its your-own-fault

    Being popular, admired, respected in church, at work, on facebook or whatever matters more than anything

    What is society supposed to do with the lower 80% of men?

    Help them?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Of course this would be encouraged.

    However, being sent overseas to die for a “national interest” (like a political grudge, some world leader is gonna spill-the-beans about your own government, oil, oil, oil, and of course protecting American womens sacred and holy vaginas from evil Arabs, Russians, or insert current enemy of the year) is a noble cause???? A justifiable death?

    All life is precious until “it isnt” hence why even without assisted suicide, our suicide rate in the USA is one of the highest in the world…and its mostly men

    We’ll debate about abortion for the gazillionth time, yet send those same babies when they become children to school hungry, little or no healthcare, having them live with a single unfit mother. Having them be the next generation of criminals……

    Gasp! Assisted suicide is wrong!!!!

    Of course it is, and no one will care. Just wit til your bold-n-biblical church endorses it, is indifferent to it (they are now, if the church was doing its job…all denoms mind you….we would not be in some of the mess we are in), or will somehow…..someway……….”women have it worse” will be the claim

    Like

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

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

  15. Pingback: Men’s Role in the Mess | 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