Deti on Female Accountability

The Vituperative Veneration of the V must be Vanquished.

Readership: All
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Author’s Note: This post expands an earlier comment.
Length: 500 words
Reading Time: 2 minutes

I don’t agree with any perspective that puts 100% of the responsibility for the success or failure of a marriage on the man as the head.

I do not agree with the notion that a woman is literally the oldest teenager in the house. That’s a humorous way of saying women get ruled by their emotions, so they aren’t really responsible for their actions. But, the fact that women let their emotions rule them does NOT exonerate them from individual, personal accountability for what women say and do.

From the very beginning, Eve was held accountable for her sin. Individually accountable. In fact, God the Father held Eve accountable FIRST, before he said, “Yeah, Adam, have a seat, because yours is coming too.” And He did not say, “Well, Eve, this happened because Adam…” He didn’t say anything other than “This is your consequence.” He imposed it on Eve, alone.

He didn’t waste any time explaining to Eve why he was imposing this consequence on her because, like the woman she was, she blamed her sin on the serpent. “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” She wouldn’t even take responsibility. “Yeah, um, I did that, but it was that serpent’s fault! Yeah, um, You caught me… but it’s not my fault!” No point in arguing with Eve what she did and that it was on her. God the Father just said, “OK, here’s your consequence.” And it was done. “You’ll have pain in childbirth. You have to submit to Adam and do what he says. And you’ll hate it and chafe under it and try to rule him.”

The point is that women have full personal agency. As such they can be held fully personally accountable. It doesn’t matter that they themselves will not acknowledge their own agency. All that matters is that they have that agency. So, if a woman will not do what she’s required to do in her marriage, then she’s accountable for it and should bear all the consequences for it. If she willfully refuses her husband’s directions, then her husband is within his rights to impose consequences. Without explanation, as God The Father did. “Nope, don’t wanna hear your rationalizations and excuses. Yes, it’s your fault, and here’s your consequence.”

So if a woman leaves a marriage, or a husband ends his marriage to her because of her willful resistance to submission, then that’s on her. The end of the marriage is her responsibility. Not his. HERS. He merely imposed a consequence upon her. Or, more accurately, allowed the natural consequences of her actions to bear their full weight on her. So for those reasons, I do not agree that the success or failure of a marriage rides fully on the man’s back.

Related

This entry was posted in Agency, Boundaries, Child Development, Collective Strength, Conserving Power, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Introspection, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Purpose, Self-Concept, Self-Control, Solipsism, Stewardship, Teaching, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Deti on Female Accountability

  1. cameron232 says:

    And yet the children bear the consequences that are imposed on her. If you say, “Well, she chose those consequences for the children”, then you are told that children don’t understand fault, only the way in which they are hurt.

    I am at a point where I want to say, “Either you want to be my wife (with what that entails) or you don’t. Just decide real soon. After Christmas. It’s yes or no. If no, I need to figure out what to do with the 2nd half of my life. I’ll be needing my salary to do that and my company offers a discount with care.com while you’re also working full time.”

    Quoth deti, “If you don’t want to act like a wife, you don’t get a husband.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      I’m sorry to hear that, brother.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      Cameron,

      “And yet the children bear the consequences that are imposed on her. If you say, “Well, she chose those consequences for the children”, then you are told that children don’t understand fault, only the way in which they are hurt.”

      You are describing how generational curses are propagated. Children are thrust into a broken godless life and they grow up thinking that this is normal and right. You need to demonstrate to the children that it is not right. Then one day they will understand that it is mommy’s foolishness that has made their lives broken and difficult. This will help decrease the chances that the curse will be passed down to your grandchildren.

      “I need to figure out what to do with the 2nd half of my life.”

      I would think that if you’re truly following your God given purpose in life, then this would not be too much different from what you’re doing now. If you think it would be drastically different, then perhaps this is a good time to reevaluate your purpose. Anyway, it’s good for you to have a Plan B, if only to demonstrate how unreliable / useless she is to Plan A and that your life does not revolve around her. Do you believe God has a Plan B for people who screw up their lives?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. farmlegend says:

    Great commentary. In our little corner of the sphere, we often hear that a woman’s rebelliousness, lack of accountability, emotional reasoning, etc., are just a failure of her man to lead her properly.

    I reject that BS 100%. As does the Book of Genesis.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Oscar says:

      Yeah. And the Church rebels against Jesus because Jesus fails to lead and love her like He should, donchakno?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      FarmLegend,

      “Great commentary. In our little corner of the sphere, we often hear that a woman’s rebelliousness, lack of accountability, emotional reasoning, etc., are just a failure of her man to lead her properly.

      I reject that BS 100%. As does the Book of Genesis.”

      Jack and I commented back and forth on a prior post about this. It’s a followership problem, not a leadership problem.

      Logically, if a husband is living life all she has to do is support him in living life to the best of her abilities, whatever that may look like. His likes, dislikes, goals and wants are enough for her to figure out how to help him get what he wants. This issue is almost always that she thinks her goals and wants are superior to his.

      If he is living life and she is telling him he’s doing it wrong, followership problem.

      If he is moving his family in the direction he wants and she does not like the direction and fights him on it, followership problem.

      If she does anything other than respectfully give her thoughts, opinions and perspective and then yield to his final decision, followership problem.

      Also note that following, as a wife, is a proactive venture of looking for better ways to support her husband.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        If she does anything other than respectfully give her thoughts, opinions and perspective and then yield to his final decision, followership problem.

        By yield to his final decision I mean do things to the best of her ability even if she isn’t thrilled about doing them. There is the rebellious pseudo compliance of doing things half @$$ which is worse than outright defiance because there is plausible deniability.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Jack says:

    At first reading, it may seem like Deti’s position in this post is at odds with what I’ve written in the previous two posts. But actually, it is not. The man’s authority and the woman’s responsibility are two different and somewhat independent issues. The reason it is confusing is because the man’s Headship authority and the woman’s responsibility to submit are dynamically interlocked in “one flesh”. Thus, it is easier for the man to lead when his wife is a willing and enthusiastic follower. It is destructive and heartbreaking when she is not. Similarly, it is easier for the woman to trust and submit when her husband has his game together and is pursuing his purpose in life. It is difficult for her when he is not. The big difference between men and women is that men will usually try to tough it out when the wife slips up, whereas most women will amp up the gaslighting and sh!t tests, rebel, rock the boat, have an affair, or divorce whenever the man’s weaknesses show through.

    Moderns, and women most of all, have forgotten that one of the purposes for marriage is to encourage and help each other during moments of weakness and times of hardship (Genesis 2:18; Ecclesiastes 4:9-12).

    The larger problem is a combination of these factors:

    1– Women are spoiled in every way.
    2– Women refuse to believe that they are to submit to their fathers / husbands.
    3– It’s too easy for women to shirk their responsibilities.
    4– It’s too easy for women to escape the consequences of their sin (i.e. CH’s Harbingers of the Sexual Apocalypse).
    5– Because of 1-4, men have come to realize that they have very little authority, so women’s accountability to men is gradually disappearing from the equation as well.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. studentray57 says:

    We stand at the doors of their hearts knocking, wanting to come in and sup with them.
    But they pay no attention, for many are called, but few are chosen.
    The King was angry. We don’t hear that from the pulpits, because their god is a loving, good, and kind god that wants everyone to prosper.
    The light grows brighter and brighter.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. redpillboomer says:

    “The point is that women have full personal agency. As such they can be held fully personally accountable. It doesn’t matter that they themselves will not acknowledge their own agency. All that matters is that they have that agency.”

    I’ve seen this operate in my 78 year old mother-in-law’s life. She’s in many respects a living, breathing example of everything we talk about in this space. She has full personal agency and refuses to acknowledge it. This has been her habit her entire adult life (solipsism anyone?). In many ways she’s a perfect example of female agency, yet in total denial of that agency.

    One example. She lives with us now since COVID and she is increasingly descending into dementia. However, enough lucidness remains for me to watch her female agency / denial of agency operate. Recently my wife opened up an envelope she received and it was for a loan payment my MIL was required to repay. She was delinquent on it, like YEARS delinquent. A number of years ago she took out at 10k loan for God only knows what, she can’t remember (not the dementia so much as just sheer cluelessness) and doesn’t even understand why she has to pay it back. She fell apart when my wife explained to her that SHE TOOK OUT THE LOAN, not anyone else. She wants to blame it on some invisible somebody “out there.” Somebody, somewhere did her wrong. I stood there in utter amazement watching this sh!t take place; however being red pill, I 100% get it! Yes, this is an extreme case of the “Eve pattern” — it fits perfectly with her having agency, but feeling like she has none… even when she is the one who borrowed the money from the bank. It’s still someone, some imaginary someone’s fault “out there” and she’s NOT responsible for it. Amazing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      RPB discussed Solipsism and Dementia. In some ways, it is the same thing, or at least they have many of the same outward manifestations. When younger women are solipsistic, they are often dismissed as flighty, or misunderstood, or something related to the “feminine mystique”, and they are skilled at shifting the focus to something else. But in old age and/or without beauty, women can’t maintain the Machiavellian image so well, and it comes across as dementia. RPB, would you comment about how you can tell the difference between solipsism and dementia?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “When younger women are solipsistic, they are often dismissed as flighty, or misunderstood, or something related to the “feminine mystique”

        Let’s not use the passive voice. That’s too much like trying to evade responsibility.

        Men dismiss young women “as flighty, or misunderstood, or something related to the ‘feminine mystique’”.

        As I’ve said before, men let hotter women get away with more foolishness, and younger typically means hotter. Their hotness then fades with age, but their foolishness doesn’t.

        We need to hold ourselves accountable for our failures to hold women accountable. We need to stop rescuing foolish women from the consequences of their foolishness, no matter how young and/or hot they are.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        My MIL was solipsistic long before her dementia. She has never taken, to my knowledge, any responsibility for her decisions, especially financially related decisions.

        She’s been a widow for 30 years now, and for most of that time, her father backed her up, and to some degree, shielded her from her poor decision-making with money. She’s made one foolish decision after another and wasted a lot of money, I mean a lot, like 1/2 a million give or take a couple thousand dollars.

        Here’s how I know she’s solipisitic. She never OWNED it (took personal responsibility) that she made those decisions, unilaterally, and some of them even in the face of her father’s protests (he died a couple years ago). She never learned a single thing from it, and I believe given the same circumstances, money and a sound mind (no dementia), she’d make all of those decisions all over again. In other words, there’s no learning that takes place, only blaming “others,” usually unnamed others, but ANYONE but herself when her foolish decisions blow up in her face.

        She then loses herself in her own vain and fantastical imaginations, we all in the red pill world would recognize as such; namely, “a rich man is going to come along and wife her up, solve all her problems, and she was going to live happily ever after, travel the world, get a face lift etc. etc.” This belief persisted all the way until about a year and a half ago when the dementia got too pronounced. Prior to that, her fantastical belief had lasted almost 30 years or so since her husband died. A lot of her foolish decisions were made in that solipsistic manner.

        In fact, we think one guy conned her out of 2.5 million by pretending he was going to marry her. She invested in some get rich quick scheme at his insistence with the idea they were going to get rich together and he was going to put a ring on her finger. Of course, that never happened because he was conning her.

        This happened about ten years ago when she was 68! freakin’ years old. Of course, the only one that got conned was her, out of her grand kids money. She had all this money because her son died in a plane crash and had left a lot of insurance money in his will for his kids for her to steward for them.

        We thought that was a HUGE mistake on his part because of her history with money. He was trying to be a good son and not leave his mother out of it so it wouldn’t cause family problems (she would have had a conniption fit being left out).

        He had divided the kids money in half, with one half to be stewarded by his mother; and the other half by my wife, his sister. My wife has all the money for them. They’ll get it when they’re old enough to demonstrate they can handle it. In the meantime we do things for them monetarily that their dad would approve of in a way that they think it’s their aunt and uncle doing it for them. No subterfuge going on, just being careful because they are twenty somethings.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        RPB,

        I just read this comment after I wrote mine below. Your MIL sounds like an extreme example of what I’m talking about there.

        Like

  6. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:

    Spot on, deti.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. naturallyaspirated says:

    Deti has provided a punctuation mark for this series. Well done.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Red Pill Apostle says:

    “I do not agree with the notion that a woman is literally the oldest teenager in the house. That’s a humorous way of saying women get ruled by their emotions, so they aren’t really responsible for their actions.”

    I’ve never thought of “the oldest teenager in the house” as a sentiment that removes a wife’s agency. It has always been a humorous way of telling men that they need to manage their wives as they would a responsible teenager.

    Teens are still culpable, but they are still developing emotional control and gaining the experience needed to see longer term consequences. This means they need a level of supervision for their own good. Same goes for a wife that struggles more with emotional control and longer term planning.

    There’s a reason that the bible allows men with headship to nullify the pledge of a woman that is under his covering the first time he hears of the pledge … emotional control, delayed gratification, and longer term planning tend to be lesser skills for women.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      @Red Pill Apostle,

      “…emotional control, delayed gratification, and longer term planning tend to be lesser skills for women.”

      Men who fail to do so meanwhile end up dead or in prison.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. okrahead says:

    Deti’s commentary highlights the modern man’s quandary. Society and most churches teach women have total freedom and yet absolve them of all responsibility. The consequence is a moral hazard. Women, protected from the consequences of their behavior, engage in more and more outrageous behavior. Men, now held responsible for women’s reckless behavior, are less and less able to cope with the situation. Women have no incentive to moderate their behavior, and men, having been likened to bicycles for fish, have no incentive to continue to bear the consequences. The result is a zero sum game where the biggest losers are the unfortunate children of single mothers who continue to carouse on the carousel. As the destruction continues, it is inevitable that society will collapse, for as we all know what cannot go on forever will not go on forever. Unfortunately, we have come to learn that women will almost universally prefer living in mud huts to giving up their “freedom.”

    Liked by 4 people

  10. imnobody00 says:

    The Christian way is that women have freedom and responsibility. The traditional Roman way is that women have no freedom and no responsibility so they are treated as minors.

    The modern way is that women have the freedom of an adult and the responsibility of a minor.

    “Citizens of Rome, if each one of us had set himself to retain the rights and the dignity of a husband over his own wife, we should have less trouble with women as a whole sex… It is because we have not kept them under control individually that we are now terrorized by them collectively… Our ancestors refused to allow any woman to transact even private business without a guardian to represent her; women had to be under the control of fathers, brothers or husbands…

    But we, heaven preserve us, are now allowing them even to take part in politics… Give a free rein to their undisciplined nature, to this untamed animal, and then expect them to set a limit to their own license…

    What they are longing for is complete liberty, or rather, if we want to speak the truth, complete license. Indeed, if they carry this point (to repeal Lex Oppia), what will they not attempt? Run over all the law relating to women whereby your ancestors curbed their license and brought them into subjection to their husbands. Even with all these bonds, you can scarcely restrain them… The very moment they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors.”

    ~ Cato’s argument, as told by Livy, History 34.2.3

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Duties and Freedom belong together. What is the purpose of Freedom that Jesus Christ gave us in the New Covenant? In order to save us for Good Works.

      It’s Freedom to pursue the Virtues of Righteousness. Not as a mere set of rules. But the Organic Righteousness of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.

      If the New Covenant writes the Laws in our Hearts. It is a restoration of what is meant to be instinctive and as routine as breathing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Info,

        “Duties and Freedom belong together. What is the purpose of Freedom that Jesus Christ gave us in the New Covenant? In order to save us for Good Works.

        It’s Freedom to pursue the Virtues of Righteousness.”

        Yes. And as NaturallyAspirated observed, love is the freely chosen action of a moral agent. Without moral agency, one cannot truly love others.

        I’m getting the impression that moral agency is a synonym for Christian Maturity or even freedom in Christ. Not sure just yet if this checks out or not. If true, this would mean not all women have moral agency. Not all men either.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Jack,

        “Not sure just yet if this checks out or not. If true, this would mean not all women have moral agency. Not all men either.”

        In a sense only beings with “Agency” can be justly held accountable. If all human beings will be judged by God either for reward (Bema Seat Judgment) or for punishment (Great White Throne).

        And every idle words out of our mouths will be judged. Then even those with atrophied Agency will be treated as “Moral Agents”.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Info,

        “In a sense only beings with “Agency” can be justly held accountable.”

        This is an assumption that I brought into question in Did Eve have Agency? Namely, being held accountable doesn’t necessarily mean that one in fact does possess agency. St. Paul addresses this in Romans 2 and Romans 9, and it is clear that God holds everyone accountable, either in this life or after, whether they are responsible agents or not. Instead, I offer the argument that it is being held accountable that leads to the development of agency. This checks out with Proverbs 3:11-12 and Hebrews 12:3-11.

        Hebrews 12:7-10 (ESV)
        7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness.

        Like

  11. Scott says:

    Day after thanksgiving Christmas decorating

    https://ibb.co/0FMQSPX
    https://ibb.co/7pkL4Lf

    Have a good one crazies

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Oscar says:

    I’m going to say this again, just in case someone here hasn’t already heard it.

    Other than Jesus Christ Himself, no one has ever rescued me from the consequences of my sins, or my foolishness. The most compassion I got from others amounted to “That sucks. How are you going to fix it?” I suspect most of you could say the same.

    That process tends to beat the stupid out of you over time. The same is true for women, and depriving them of that maturity is destructive to everyone.

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      One of my favorite wise observations of all time ….

      If you’re going to be stupid in this life, you better be tough.

      Comes across best when said slowly with a Southern drawl.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Oscar says:

    Good news! The Poop Water Crisis of Thanksgiving 2022 has been successfully resolved. One more thing to be thankful for!

    By the way, the septic dude’s making six figures pumping people’s poop water in rural northern Idaho. That’s one way to get filthy rich!

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Glad it worked out buddy.

      Yeah poop pays. My 3X great grandpa opened a business cleaning “vaults” (the holding tanks of primitive city sewers) in a midwestern city. The business was quite lucrative.

      Sh!tty work though.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      The way to get filthy rich is to own assets that generate income. The way to buy those assets is with a cash cow like plumbing / electric / HVAC, where you can get paid to learn on the job for a couple years before starting your own business.

      For plumbing / septic there is a sizeable investment in some of the equipment up front (honey truck, trailer, small excavator) but after that a man is limited only by how good he is with people and his business sense. The septic company I use started 4 years ago. They coach people through what the problem is, the potential fixes and pros/cons of each.

      His first year revenue was $500k and this year he will push $3m. He has a couple crews working for him now which is the biggest reason being good with people is important. The 2 man pump crew does 4-5 pumps in a day at $500-600 per pump and they do that a few times per week depending on the other work he might need them on.

      That means 2 men and about 80k in equipment generate roughly a quarter million in revenue per year part time just dealing with poo removal. Any repairs add to that for part time work.

      Liked by 3 people

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