Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency

Posted on 2022-12-05 by Jack

The idolatrous twin sins of Female Hypoagency and Male Hyperagency.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 7.5 minutes + 2 videos totaling 11:25 minutes

Introduction

A little-known Japanese Manospherian, Kyojiro Kagenuma (AKA Going Your Own Way, or GYOW), offers this brilliant tidbit of insight on the MGTOW Forum, Going Your Own Way: The Female Psychosis (2014/3/16).  In this essay, Kagenuma paints a damning portrait of female psychology in which he describes four interdependent aspects of Female Psychosis detailing the mental conditions of women.

  1. Egocentrism
  2. Narcissism
  3. Solipsism
  4. The mythical and immortal Rationalization Hamster.

The full article is quite lengthy, but well worth reading. I’d even call it required, as IMO it ranks up there with The Misandry Bubble (2010/1/1) and Gems (2020/1/1) by Imran Khan and Kartik Gada in terms of Red Pill literary value.

Many of the sources Kagenuma cites have been scrubbed from the internet, but I have been able to find some archives at The WayBack Machine and have provided alternative links instead.  I have not been able to find all the scientific studies that he cites in his larger essay, but I have been able to locate those references cited in the excerpts below.

I’ve also taken the liberty to clean up the English a bit.

Infantile Solipsism

I would consider Infantile Solipsism to be an expression of severe immaturity, whether it be emotional, psychological, spiritual, or otherwise, as aptly indicated by the descriptor, ‘infantile’. The major problem is that modern women languish in this condition until middle age or even longer.

Kagenuma describes this condition in full detail.

“Infantile Solipsism is when a woman perceives the world as full of appliances that go up and down in terms of their usefulness to her, which therefore from her perspective can go from meaningful to meaningless.  Now please take a moment to consider the above statement; if from her perspective something is considered as meaningless, that means that thing does not exist, at least in her mind.”

This is why low SMV men are “invisible” to most women.

“Infantile Solipsism is ‘you only see what you want to see,’ although that is only half of it because ‘you also won’t see what you don’t want to see.’  This can explain why some people – especially Narcissists – have difficulty empathizing with others; if you are meaningless to her then all your actions are meaningless.”

This is why it is virtually impossible for low SMV men to get any traction with women, even though they may say and do the exact same things as high SMV men.

“It also explains why women can easily dismiss obvious evidences so easily; if something is meaningless then it does not exist and conversely, if she perceives something as non-existent then every meaningful detail attached to that thing is null.

Infantile Solipsism is also the principal belief behind the sense of entitlement.  A woman only sees those who are wealthier than her, she becomes envious and she wants that wealth for herself, not acknowledging that there are many people around her that are not as well off as she is.  She only feels her wants and that is being entitled for a luxurious lifestyle; her belief in this sense of self-entitlement drives her to search for ways to achieve that goal which leads to Hypergamy.”

Kagenuma has identified Infantile Solipsism as the psychological foundation of Hypergamy. Brilliant! I don’t think even Rollo went that deep.

He included the following two videos to exemplify how Infantile Solipsism is manifested in Hypergamy.

“What? Not All Women Are Like That? Here’s a clip from the other side of the world.”

“And we know that women all over the world are hypergamous because a study conducted worldwide across 37 cultures strongly support the position that women prefer marriage partners who either have or have the potential to obtain social status and control material resources [Buss 1989].

This study included that women rated ‘good financial prospect’ higher than did men in all cultures.  Hence most women are hypergamous and this belief that they deserve a luxury stems from their self-absorbed, envious, infantile perspective that they are entitled to such things.  You’re not entitled to anything that you don’t work for.

But it does not stop there.”

Female Hypoagency

“Among the most fundamental beliefs that women ascribe to is the belief that women are not actors in their own lives but are only acted upon, which is called Female Hypoagency [Ginkgo 2011].  Women believe that they lack the ability to act, to affect things, and thereby can produce no effects [ThinkingApe-TV 2012].”

The article from Ginkgo outlines a specific definition for Female Hypoagency as follows.

“Female hypoagency is what we call the cultural tendency to deny that women have agency.  We are talking about imputed rather than real lack of agency.  This means that when a woman does something, her agency in that act is denied, so that if that act is something bad, she will be immune from blame.

A necessary corollary of female hypoagency is male hyperagency.  Under male hyperagency, men are held responsible for all the things women are not.”

Back to Kagenuma’s essay.

“Women only want to see men do things and do not want to see themselves doing it; this is termed Infantile Solipsism.

And because they only want to believe this, they demand others – specifically men – to do and act for them, in what is termed as Male Hyperagency.  Feminism then can be viewed as a belief system – a religion – based on feminine tenets, such as Female Hypoagency, where the feminazis cry ‘victim’ to the Descartian-like Evil Demon fantasy that is “The Patriarchy”, or the traditionalist maidens feign damseling to the Gynocracy.”

Apparently, Female Hypoagency is quite easy to accept as being true, simply because that is what we always see in 99.99% women, 99.99% of the time. Although women do have the innate potential for agency and all women are aware of this at some level (and definitely those with sufficient sexperience), Infantile Solipsism implies that they are incapable of standing up to the responsibilities that come with it, nor can they shoulder the guilt, loss, and shame that comes from neglecting that responsibility OTOH. Thus, this conundrum gets pushed as far away from their consciousness as they can manage (denial) because of all the obvious negative implications.

That’s why it seems like “It’s not on their radar screen at all”. That’s why it seems like they are blind to it, and whenever they are forced to recognize their own agency, they are obstinately opposed to employing it, and so they never exercise it. They never develop that capability and they never grow into it. So they remain spiritual infants. Yes, SPIRITUAL infants. The mindset of Infantile Solipsism, as well as the other three psychoses outlined by Kagenuma, are marks of spiritual immaturity (1 Corinthians 3:1-3; Hebrews 5:11-14).

Women need to repent of Infantile Solipsism and develop their agentic capacity if they ever hope to become mature Christians. For example, in No More Mrs. Hot Mess! (2021/11/29), reader Femmy gave a credible testimony of her repentance in which she explained that she did not perceive that she had agency until someone pointed it out, and once she was aware of it, she said it was very difficult for her to act on it.  She also said AWALT.  From what I have seen, this is more or less true much of the time.  Also, Femmy is somewhat of a unicorn.  Most women insist on female hypoagency and thereby deny their agency instead of rethinking their position and doing the hard work of repenting as Femmy did.

As I noted in this same essay, this lack of self-awareness and itinerant agency is what is often touted by women as a “lack of self-esteem”.  Here, “lack of self-esteem” is code for feeling paralyzed by the fear of taking agentic action. In fact, anytime we hear of women justifying their bad decisions because of “not enough self-esteem”, we can safely assume that to mean they were languishing in a crisis of disbelief (or a suspension of disbelief), and were too solipsistic to be able to respond appropriately.  In essence, they are hiding behind the pseudo-religion of female hypoagency.

I have concluded that…

“…men, fathers, and husbands need to make the women in their charge aware of this instinctive reaction common to women so that they will have a greater self-awareness and therefore will possess the ability to exercise agency.”

Scott also alluded to this in How do we teach young women about their own nature? (2022/6/18), and suggested that Operant Conditioning is necessary to remove the veil from women’s eyes.  IOW, discipline and accountability.

Moreover, my point in saying all this is that what Ginkgo and Kagenuma call ‘hypoagency’, is more simply and precisely understood as a fear of accepting responsibility. It is a lack of faith in (1) the power of God to work through human agency when we make a choice to do what is right, and (2) the grace of God to carry us through those times when we make poor choices that are agentic in nature (not to be confused with non-agentic choices such as addiction, avoidance, denial, hamsterbation, rebellion, self-anesthetization, etc.). In order for women to develop faith and self-control, it is necessary for Men to impose Frame and hold women accountable, especially wives, daughters, and others within our domain of influence.

Gynocentrism and Feminism

“Gynocentrism then, is cultural Male Hyperagency, which is one of the most blatant forms of Narcissistic Exploitation by women.  Gynocentrism includes the idea that men should slave and sacrifice themselves for women and that women’s dysfunctional behavior should be forgiven and forgotten, i.e. Narcissistic Supply and the ‘Pussy Pass’.”

This observation parallels what Dalrock and deti have observed within the church, and independently confirms that the same thing is/was happening in the wider culture (i.e. the church is converged).

“Feminism is the organized religion of Female Solipsistic Psychosis that spawned and nurtured Gynocentrism, which is cultural enslavement of men, that includes sending men to their death during wartime.  Gynocentrism is essentially, the systemic gender violence and discrimination of men; Gynocentrism is Misandry.”

Elsewhere in both articles from Kagenuma and Ginkgo and in the comments sections, examples are given of women sending men to their deaths (e.g. the Titanic, WW1, H!tler’s Valkyries, Thatcher and the Falkland Islands, etc.)

It seems I’ve heard the argument of “Gynocentrism = Misandry” elsewhere in the Manosphere, but I cannot remember where. I know Dalrock and Biblical Gender Roles have alluded to this, but I’m not sure if they ever stated it so explicitly. Perhaps a reader knows. Anyway, another score for Kagenuma.

“And we can prove this Misandry by looking at R@pe Shield Laws where men cannot even defend themselves against the woman’s accusations of r@pe which was proven to be false such as the Duke Lacrosse case [Appleborne 2007].  We can also look at British Crime Surveys that put domestic violence against men by women in the U.K. at 40%, and how the society at large ignores this [Hoyle 2013].  We can also see how British society is so blatantly biased against fathers, that 60% of all households in cities such as Cardiff, Liverpool and Sheffield are fatherless [Sawer, 2013].  All of this proves that Gynocentrism and Feminism are both discriminatory and evil.”

See links below for evidence of these claims.

Seeing how female hypoagency is a fear of accepting responsibility, I suspect that male hyperagency is also driven by a fear, perhaps a fear of impotency or inefficacy. Readers are welcome to speculate about what those fears might be.

References

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, China, Convergence, Fantasy and Illusion, Female Evo-Psych, Female Power, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Hypergamy, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, MGTOW, Incels, Models of Failure, Psychological Disorders, Psychology, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence, The Hamster. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency

  1. Oscar says:
    2022-12-05 at 5:42 am

    “This means that when a woman does something, her agency in that act is denied…”

    Not quite. People deny women’s agency when women do something that result in negative consequences. They give women full credit when they do things that result in positive consequences.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply
    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
      2022-12-05 at 6:45 am

      I would say they are over-credited.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    • Jack says:
      2022-12-05 at 8:45 am

      Oscar, Bardelys,

      “People deny women’s agency when women do something that result in negative consequences. They give women full credit when they do things that result in positive consequences.”

      “I would say they are over-credited.”

      Your distinctions are true, however they only add descriptions to Gingko’s concepts of hyperagency and hypoagency and do not undermine his basic definition.

      The people who excuse and/or permit women’s bad behavior by denying women’s agency and/or over-crediting them are enabling women’s failure to exercise agency. Gingko calls this whole situation of treating women like babies female hypoagency.

      When men are involved, they are expected to take up the slack and are punished somehow if they do not. Ginko calls this situation male hyperagency.

      We see both hypoagency and hyperagency in the church and the wider Western culture.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply
      • info says:
        2022-12-05 at 8:15 pm

        Our suffering is precisely to force recognition of the need to hold women accountable. But those who won’t learn will be destroyed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:
        2022-12-06 at 12:48 am

        Jack,

        Agreed. I only intend to point out the typical inconsistencies. If you take credit for the consequences of your good decisions, then you must also take responsibility for the consequences of your bad decisions, and vice versa.

        As always, we can’t do much about the greater culture, but we can hold the people in our spheres of influence accountable, starting with ourselves.

        Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:
      2022-12-06 at 9:20 pm

      “You go girl!” rings a bell.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  2. feeriker says:
    2022-12-05 at 10:26 pm

    “Our suffering is precisely to force recognition of the need to hold women accountable. But those who won’t learn will be destroyed.”

    I’ve said it before, and only half in jest, that on Judgment Day, when it is finally made crystal clear to women that they have COMPLETE moral agency, more than one of them is going to argue violently with God Himself that she has none and that she is not in any way responsible for any of her own mistakes and sins.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • info says:
      2022-12-05 at 10:46 pm

      Pharisees argued with Jesus. But our Lord shut their mouths.

      https://www.drrandallcollins.com/sociological-eye/2014/04/jesus-in-interaction-micro-sociology-of.html

      God AMOGs the Pharisees. And He will AMOG all the women.

      Like

      Reply
      • dave sora says:
        2022-12-06 at 2:51 am

        I got to like your 3rd paragraph and you became a feminist:

        “Notice what happens: Jesus is sitting on the ground, teaching to a crowd in the outer courtyard of the temple at Jerusalem. The Pharisees, righteous upholders of traditional ritual and law, haul before him a woman taken in adultery. They make her stand in front of the crowd and say to Jesus: ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law commands us to stone her to death. What do you say?’”

        This story is known to be a forgery. See the note that the NIV prints in the body of the text after John 7:52.

        “[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]”

        Not only do the earliest manuscripts not have this feminist story but the women who added it to the later manuscripts could not agree on whether to add it to Luke 7, Luke 21, Luke 24, John 7, or John 21. Busted!

        From henceforth anyone pretending this story is authentic is anathemized as the worse of antichrists! This story is demonic hatred of Christ and pure misandry as well.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:
        2022-12-06 at 7:00 am

        @Dave sora

        Women added the text? Unproven and without source.

        Like

      • dave sora says:
        2022-12-06 at 9:14 am

        Would men be dumb enough to add it in 5 different places? Sounds like women to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:
        2022-12-06 at 10:29 am

        “From henceforth anyone pretending this story is authentic is anathemized as the worse of antichrists!”

        And if some internet rando decrees it, then it shall be done.

        Like

      • Corvus says:
        2022-12-13 at 3:07 pm

        I’ve always thought that was an unusual passage, but after learning that it is not in the earliest manuscripts, the more it has seemed like an aberration. It just doesn’t follow with other interactions we see Jesus have with other sinners. There is no call to repentance and doesn’t indicate that she was repentative; just “go and sin no more.” The man in the adulterous relationship is not there to be judged as well, even though she was “caught in the act.” It is definitely all just a bit strange.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. dave sora says:
    2022-12-06 at 2:58 am

    His example of The Women’s Petition Against Coffee of 1674 is pure gold.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Bardelys the Magnificent says:
    2022-12-06 at 3:44 am

    I read the Illimitable Man’s article A Most Solipsistic Nature that you referenced, and a few light bulbs went off. Many of my failures with women instantly made sense, including a recent one. It was an insight I have searched for a long time. I have read IM before but must have missed that one. Thank you, Jack.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. locustsplease says:
    2022-12-06 at 10:43 am

    I loved the doctor Phil video. Something like this could get him canceled today! And the video of those Asian RP men… Those women should just go b an escort so they can stay away from garbage men!

    The Phil video I partially disagree. That was obviously one of the most high-end bars in town with valet service — it’s not a fair representation. And the guy pulled up with the missing fender showing to the inside. Those women are predators with a high level of sniffing out money you can’t game them with out status. And don’t need to with it. They are also dropping their status even by talking to him; he is such low status.

    My friends who taught me how to game women… We would go to every club and bar in town. We had connections and got into clubs at 18 which is about impossible for men. A few really high end ones too. We would get ghosted by every chick there, period! All the men had real serious money. We went there to get ghosted and would always stay half the night just to get blown off by these stuck up girls. We also worked on picking up girls with crappy or sometimes dirty clothes on at nice places, just not the valet parking places, and were successful.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • Joe2 says:
      2022-12-07 at 6:39 am

      “The Phil video I partially disagree. That was obviously one of the most high-end bars in town with valet service — it’s not a fair representation.”

      I totally disagree with the Dr. Phil video; it’s all made up BS for his show.

      The women in the high-end bar didn’t see the three fender car because the valet service took the car as he entered. Only a few women who were by the window could see the car. But high end bars (as well as bars in general) do not have large windows facing outside where someone could look in and see who’s there and what’s going on. Privacy of the customers is respected.

      The women in the high end bar refused a drink not because he didn’t have money or status. He had money to buy a drink. And not because of the way he dressed. If he was dressed inappropriately for the venue something would have been said to him as he entered probably by the doorman or even the hostess.

      The women refused a drink because he lacked social graces and deliberately acted like a desperate loser by treating them as if they were lushes. You just don’t cold-call a woman and the first thing you say is to offer to buy her a drink, as shown in the video. They didn’t want to be near him.

      Like

      Reply
      • locustsplease says:
        2022-12-07 at 7:55 am

        I never said I enjoyed the acting or the show. All the vallet places I remember going to were right at the front door. However he claims a girl put her tits in the window of the viper and that seems about right. So you disagree women are after money because that’s what Phil said? I disagreed because that’s not an average group of women in a gold diggers bar.

        Like

      • Joe2 says:
        2022-12-07 at 12:16 pm

        “So you disagree women are after money because that’s what Phil said?”

        What I’m saying is Dr. Phil’s experiment used the outcomes of a wrong venue to draw his conclusions about women being after money.

        Had the guy with the three fender car been placed in a dive bar where the women are out of shape, wear jeans, and walk around holding and drinking from a bottle of beer the outcome would have been different because he would have “fit in” better. No doubt he would have takers for his drink offer. Some women would have even gone outside for a good laugh at his car while taking a smoke break.

        The women in the high-end bar spend a lot of money on their appearance. In addition to some cosmetic enhancement, they may workout and eat properly to keep fit, have excellent social graces, wear designer clothing, and have a good paying job or career. These women are looking for their counterpart in men. Are they gold diggers? Not necessarily.

        Like

  6. Bardelys the Magnificent says:
    2022-12-06 at 11:43 pm

    “I suspect that male hyperagency is also driven by a fear, perhaps a fear of impotency or inefficacy.”

    I think this is on the nose. “Man up!!!” works on an embarrassingly large segment of the male population. We have a deep drive to be (as opposed to feel) competent and lead, but men can be swayed by feelings of inadequacy just as strongly as women can. That desire has of course been hijacked for women’s benefit, as Dalrock and others have noted.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  7. redpillboomer says:
    2022-12-07 at 2:29 am

    “This is why low SMV men are “invisible” to most women…. This is why it is virtually impossible for low SMV men to get any traction with women, even though they may say and do the exact same things as high SMV men.”

    This is what I’ve seen in my experience with men who fall outside of the “top 20%.” If they are close to that top 20%, and they do a little self development and apply some game, they can compete for women’s attention because they have now become “visible,” however if too far out of the top 20%, say a 6 (out of ten) and below, they’ll continue to remain invisible.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • thedeti says:
      2022-12-07 at 3:43 am

      Getting a woman for your very own and building something with her is the main reason men build anything. Why should we build anything we don’t need? Why should we go out and break ourselves in half to earn 500% of what we need, if there’s no woman and no children? I mean, I’ll work, but I’ll work only as hard as I need to to support myself.

      Right now, I earn and produce way, way more than what I need on my own, but that’s because I have to to support a wife and a son still at home. When I was a single guy I lived on a fraction of what I make now.

      It’s all well and good that women don’t want the bottom 80% of men. That’s fine. They aren’t then entitled even to ask about those men’s money or resources. They aren’t then entitled even to ask, “Where have all the good men gone?” or similar questions. They then aren’t entitled to say anything about those men — what they do, where they go, who they do or don’t do anything with, or why they do or don’t do it. They aren’t entitled to criticize those men in any way, shape, manner, or form. They have no right to say anything about those men.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      • feeriker says:
        2022-12-07 at 3:50 am

        Things will get very interesting when increasing numbers of wall wrecks become desperate enough to start “dumpster diving” among that lower 80 percent – only to discover that the thirst in that demographic has abated and that there are no takers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:
        2022-12-07 at 5:59 am

        “It’s all well and good that women don’t want the bottom 80% of men. That’s fine. They aren’t then entitled even to ask about those men’s money or resources. They aren’t then entitled even to ask, “Where have all the good men gone?” or similar questions. They then aren’t entitled to say anything about those men – what they do, where they go, who they do or don’t do anything with, or why they do or don’t do it. They aren’t entitled to criticize those men in any way, shape, manner, or form. They have no right to say anything about those men.”

        These men still have a use to women in their thirties and early forties, they provide the “Capt Save-a-Hoe’s,” so she can have her day at the altar and his resources for her “white picket fence” lifestyle. I think this is where a lot of the howling we’re hearing from women these days is coming from. These guys, particularly the top 20% of the lower 80%, are apparently “walking away” from the role they’ve been playing the last 20-30 years or so, and that is what’s spawning all the “Where have the good men gone?” laments.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-07 at 6:01 am

        The bottom line here is that more and more men in that bottom 80% will not find anyone because they are not attractive enough to forge or sustain relationships. They lack the ability to attract and keep a woman. They do not have what it takes.

        More and more women who would otherwise have been with those men will not be, because they would rather work jobs and have casual sex with top 20% men. They lack the fundamental character necessary to form relationships with men.

        Hopefully, men will adjust their lifestyles to avoid women. The only moral choice for Christian men in this situation is lifelong celibacy. There are increasing numbers of men who should be single and aren’t meant for relationships. Most men won’t stay “single” or unattached, of course. They will either head to the OASIS or marry poorly.

        Like

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-07 at 6:04 am

        “These guys, particularly the top 20% of the lower 80%, are apparently “walking away” from the role they’ve been playing the last 20-30 years or so…”

        Yes, it’s certain that a lot of those men in the second quintile (20-40%) are either walking away or staying in exile after being burned once in a bad marriage. That seems to be a sufficient critical mass of men which is causing women to notice.

        It’s causing a lot of resentment on both sides, for sure.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:
        2022-12-07 at 1:40 pm

        “…a lot of those men in the second quintile (20-40%) are either walking away or staying in exile after being burned once in a bad marriage. That seems to be a sufficient critical mass of men which is causing women to notice.”

        According to studies of ethnic and minority groups in the U.S., critical mass is about 8-10% of a population, and 18-25% is the point where a culture no longer exists as it was before. Gallup reports that QTBGL is 7.1% (and growing), very near that critical mass. The Black and Hispanic populations are at 13.6% and 21% respectively right now, and higher in some areas. MGTOW is above critical mass with figures ranging from 10% to 26%. (Real data on this is quickly censored). The divorce rate and OOW birth rate are both well above 25%. Meanwhile, Christianity is 63% and declining. (Probably more like 6-8% in reality.) All this indicates that American / Western culture as it once was, will (or will soon be) relegated to history, as we already know.

        This is exactly why Taiwan has tight restrictions on immigration and keeps the immigration rate pegged at 4.5% maximum.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-07 at 6:18 am

        Aaron Clarey is the model for this right now. Clarey, aka Captain Capitalism, has been blogging in and around the Men’s Sphere since the mid to late aughts. He has a finance degree and worked in banking until he was in his mid 30s. He does videos now. He is in his mid to late 40s. Never married, no kids, vasectomy. Lives a minimalist life in the Great Plains. I think he has a couple of businesses and does videos where he does videos giving advice and answering questions in exchange for varying fees. Has a live in girlfriend at least as of this writing. Solid MGTOW.

        This is what more and more men will be doing. And I cannot say as I would blame them. If he were 20 years older, Clarey would probably be married with a couple of grown kids, retiring from a job as a bank vice president or something. There are millions of educated, intelligent, hardworking men like him who, 20 years ago, would be tethered to wives and jobs, producing way, way more resources than they need. More and more men now just aren’t doing that, and I can’t blame them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
        2022-12-07 at 6:54 am

        “The bottom line here is that more and more men in that bottom 80% will not find anyone because they are not attractive enough to forge or sustain relationships. They lack the ability to attract and keep a woman. They do not have what it takes.”

        I disagree with you here, deti. I think there are plenty of men who are more than capable, IF women’s expectations of them were in line with reality. Women are looking for perfection, and it’s not our fault we can’t give that to them.

        It’s quite toxic to tell men they must be top 20% or they will die alone, because that makes failures out of 80% of us and even baseball, failure sport that it is, doesn’t work with an 80% fail rate. Apply that thinking to any other system: if 80% of the testing environment is failing, even though they’re built to succeed, then the system itself is broken, not the subjects. No, women need to snap back to reality. Then the SMP scale will balance and men will do just fine.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-07 at 7:15 am

        BtM:

        “IF women’s expectations of them were in line with reality. Women are looking for perfection, and it’s not our fault we can’t give that to them.”

        Interesting, coming from the man who a few months ago was saying we needed to avoid focusing on women and telling women to change. Aren’t you changing your tune here and telling us that women need to change?

        I’ve come around to your (prior?) way of thinking on this. Women are going to do what they’re going to do. Men aren’t good enough for them. We cannot change them. We need to let them go and let them sink or swim on their own merit.

        It isn’t toxic. It’s realistic. It’s simply reality that most men don’t have what it takes to be in relationships with modern women. Now, modern women don’t have what it takes to be in relationships with anyone, but we’re not focusing on them. We’re trying to help men here, and leave women to their own devices. Women have made it very clear they don’t want anything less than perfection. They don’t want the men they can have, so they settle for sharing top men. That’s not men’s fault, and men can’t be expected to make women change.

        We can’t make women snap back to reality. That’s not going to happen in our lifetimes. We had best make do with the system we have.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:
        2022-12-07 at 8:25 am

        @thedeti

        For many men the only option is celibacy. But celibacy isn’t for everyone. As celibate men shouldn’t we stick up for men who still get married and equip them to ensure successful families and lineages?

        Help them beat the odds.

        Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
        2022-12-07 at 8:25 am

        “Interesting, coming from the man who a few months ago was saying we needed to avoid focusing on women and telling women to change. Aren’t you changing your tune here and telling us that women need to change?”

        There’s nothing contradictory here at all. Women DO need to change, which is independent of what men need to do. It’s not going to happen by men becoming better. We need to do that for our own sake, not the wimminz. Telling men they need to be top 20% for the wimminz is going to Black Pill a lot of them into quitting on themselves. Not the message we need to be sending. Like I said, I think most men, removed from the unrealistic expectations of women, are fine. They need to hear that once in a while, not develop ulcers from trying to crab-bucket their way into some nebulous “top 20%” just to get an ungrateful woman.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-07 at 9:47 pm

        BtM

        OK. How’s this going to work then? How are women going to change? Who or what is going to get them to change? When will that happen? And why should women change when they are getting what they want (sex with top 20% men, babies, government money, and “jobs” they don’t really have to “work” at), and none of what they don’t want (responsibility, accountability, and having to be married to and have sex with men they’re not attracted to)?

        I mean, if you’re a 21st century western woman, you get everything you want except marriage to Mr. Big. But you get everything else literally handed to you on silver platters. I completely understand why women take that deal, and why they don’t change.

        Why would any woman change when they are getting literally everything they want, and nothing they don’t want? Why would any woman change when everyone runs interference for them and does everything for them and then won’t hold them responsible for it?

        Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:
        2022-12-07 at 11:43 pm

        You know the answer to this, deti. Women are shrieking because they’re NOT getting what they really want: marriage and commitment, preferably with Chad. Feminism has not given them what they want but as we’ve covered, they don’t believe they have the agency to change that anyway. There’s nothing more we can do for them now. They are a hiker that has gone too far into the forest for the rescue team to reach them; they will have to find their own way out or perish. Women need to realize that marrying Bob from accounting is going to be their salvation, and many of them will run kicking and screaming from that reality. So be it. Don’t save her, she don’t want to be saved.

        Like

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-07 at 11:58 pm

        “There’s nothing more we can do for them now. They are a hiker that has gone too far into the forest for the rescue team to reach them; they will have to find their own way out or perish. Women need to realize that marrying Bob from accounting is going to be their salvation, and many of them will run kicking and screaming from that reality. So be it. Don’t save her, she don’t want to be saved.”

        So, the answer is that they have to marry Bob from accounting? But we know they ‘re not going to do that. So that’s not a solution.

        Lots of s1uts have married Bob from accounting, and then divorced him after pumping out one or two of his kids. So that’s not the solution either.

        The solution is not to force them into marriage to Bob. The solution is to let them perish. Which is… kind of what I said. And then after we let them perish, we do the best we can to start over with hard patriarchy and putting wives under husband authority; and girls under paternal authority. Women are going to have to do it men’s way, or GTFO.

        And no one is saying women have to marry. They don’t. They never have, not even in pre-Civil War era Western society. No one will make women marry now. In any post-modern reversion to hard patriarchy, no one will force women to marry then either. But what needs to be done, if women won’t marry or choose not to, is that they need to be responsible and accountable for all of their choices, including their choices to delay marriage, or not to marry. These women need to pay their own way and not rely on anyone other than family or charity to support them. If they cannot attract a mate, then they need to find a way to support themselves. If none of the potential mates are sufficiently attractive to them, then they need to find a way to support themselves without reliance on government.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:
        2022-12-08 at 12:04 am

        If we’re going to make women marry Bob from accounting, then we need to make marriage stick and we need to prohibit them from divorcing Bob. That means nationwide divorce reform. Not going to happen in this lifetime.

        Liked by 2 people

    • naturallyaspirated says:
      2022-12-07 at 3:58 am

      Fundamental truth in that post you linked. Largely ignored by modern western culture.

      Trouble awaits!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  9. thedeti says:
    2022-12-07 at 6:56 am

    To me, the Dr. Phil video is just some evidence of what women don’t want to talk about — that they want access to men with money. They don’t want the men. They want access to the men so they can use those men’s money. They want to go through the men to get to the money.

    No one talks about this. No one instructs men on this. No one wants to be straight with men and tell them the truth about this.

    But everyone knows men like hot women: pretty face, long hair, big boobs, tight @$$, long legs. A video showing men gravitating to hot women while avoiding plain women would garner no real surprise.

    But expose women’s shallowness and superficiality? Rage! Denial! Sexism! Misogyny!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  10. Devon70 says:
    2022-12-07 at 8:27 pm

    Half of single men don’t approach women for fear of being “creepy” and we know this means physically unattractive. I’m sure some of these guys are on dating sites but yes more guys are not bothering with women.

    Like

    Reply

  11. Pingback: Bruce Charlton on Agency | Σ Frame

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

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

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

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

  16. Pingback: Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Dalrock on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Deti on Female Agency | Σ Frame

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

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

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

  22. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

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

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

  25. Pingback: Single moms can’t escape the shame. | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: The Peaceful Unity Marriage Model | Σ Frame

  27. Pingback: When Two Worlds Collide | Σ Frame

  28. Pingback: Who will Take Care of Men? | Σ Frame

  29. Pingback: Σ Frame

  30. Pingback: Rewriting the Script for a Kinder, Gentler Feminism | Σ Frame

  31. Pingback: Triggers | Σ Frame

  32. Pingback: 3. The Law of Power | Σ Frame

  33. Pingback: 4. The Law of Respect | Σ Frame

  34. Pingback: Repenting from Covert Buddhism | Σ Frame

  35. Pingback: Female Agency – An Elusive Induction | Σ Frame

Leave a comment