What we’ve learned about Female Agency

The weaker vessel will give you much trouble in the flesh.

Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Author’s Note: This post contains excerpts from reader’s comments.  Links to the original comments are given in the initial words.
Length: 2,900 words
Reading Time: 15 minutes

Posts in this Series

Agency is a very old topic in the sphere that has never been fully resolved (namely, do women have moral agency or not?).  In this series, I’ve attempted to bring the matter towards a conclusion.

Due to the complexity of the topic, this theme has been extended for 8 weeks, so there are quite a lot of posts in this series.

Reviews of Agency and Moral Agency

Case Studies


Rubric taken from Σ Frame (Jack): The Dalrock Route (2020/2/10)


This theme topic has received several responses.

There have also been a number of articles that have appeared elsewhere on Based / Red Pill / Right leaning blogs that have addressed the same or closely related topics.  (I have not corresponded with these authors, so I’m not sure if these were inspired by the topics appearing here at Σ Frame or not.)

Also, JustPearlyThings produced at least two videos during this time that were on topic.  One was covered in Agency is Anathema to the Female Fleshly Nature (2022/12/7).  The other is here.

JustPearlyThings: Modern Women WILL ALWAYS Avoid Accountability (2022/12/2) Length: 8:00

Sources of Confusion

Upon the conclusion of this theme, we have found that much of the confusion surrounding the question of whether women possess Moral Agency is due to…

  1. The juxtaposition of (1) overwhelming cultural forces, i.e. Hypoagency, (2) the fallen fleshly nature, (3) women’s willful resistance, and (4) men’s willingness to concede — all working together to create the deceptive illusion of female Hypoagency.  See the next two sections for more on this.
  2. The fact that there are 4 intertwined aspects of Moral Agency which are often jumbled together in any discussion of the subject.  This will be discussed later in this essay.
  3. Not just 1 but 2 ironies which I’ll cover below.

Hypoagency and Hyperagency

In Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency (2022/12/5), Gingko gave us a fuller understanding of hypoagency and hyperagency, briefly described as follows.

Female hypoagency is the cultural tendency to deny that women have any imputed agency.

  • Whenever a woman does something that results in negative consequences, her agency in that act is denied, such that she will be immune from blame.
  • Whenever a woman does something that results in positive consequences, she is given full credit and may even be over-credited.

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.

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

Whenever a woman does something that results in negative consequences and a man is directly involved in the situation, either (1) the entirety of blame is placed squarely on the man, and/or (2) the man is expected to assume full responsibility and take up the slack.  He is demonized or punished somehow if he does not comply.

Moreover, these are forms of Operant Conditioning which teach women to neglect agency, and whip men into obedience to the Feminine Imperative.

We see both hypoagency and hyperagency occurring in the church and the wider Western culture as a norm.

Idolatrous Faux Fantasies (Solipsism) and the Failure of Imagination

One of the big issues with women’s agency is their lack of perceived agency.  That is, women DO have the capacity of exercising agency, but they aren’t aware of it.  This is essentially a failure of imagination, which is a common symptom of idolatry.  Instead of imagining how they might improve their situation by responding appropriately, they indulge their imaginative capacity in various forms of fantasy and mythos and they expect reality to conform to whatever that might be.  This is solipsism in a nutshell.

Since their minds are preoccupied with fantasy, they only see imagined choices and they can’t see real options.  Thus, they do not become aware that they have a choice in the real sense, and so they fail to instantiate agentic force.  This is why they are prone to believe that everything that happens to them, “just happens”, and that they are helpless victims who are merely responding to what they perceive as injustices (according to their solipsistic fantasies).  They never realize that they are out of touch with reality (until a man steps in and sets them straight), so they bumble the decision making about how to respond appropriately. By failing to choose wisely, they unwittingly contribute to the perceived “injustice”.

So even though women DO have agentic capacity, for all intents and purposes, they’re cluelessly stuck in their heads and therefore behave like they don’t.  Then because they never exercise agentic capacity, it either never develops, or it atrophies into nothing.  Women will often describe this condition as “a lack of self-esteem”, which is a misnomer, because the underlying latent idolatry of solipsism has nothing to do with self-esteem.

The 4 Aspects of Moral Agency

As the series wore on, I discovered that Moral Agency has 4 parts which are dynamically interrelated.  I sussed out an initial assessment of these differences in a post On the Concept of Agency (2022/11/16), but since then I’ve concluded that these differences can be better described in terms of Capability, Responsibility, Maturity, and Culpability.  What follows is a brief summary of each.

1. Women’s Moral Agency in Terms of Capability

The Bible says women are not morally equal nor interchangeable with men.

  • Women are more easily deceived than men.
  • Women have a weaker moral capacity than men.
  • Women are strongly averse to accepting the consequences of their decisions.

All of this is to say that women have an impaired / conditional / weakened sense of moral agency, which is exactly what Paul alluded to in 1 Peter 3:7 [emphasis mine].

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

1 Peter 3:7 (ESV)

In terms of population distributions, Zippy Catholic’s assessment of Moral Agency as a function of individual capability illustrates how most women often fail to instantiate the same level of Moral Agency as men do.

2. Women’s Moral Agency in Terms of Responsibility

Moral Agency is always assessed in terms of a structure of authority. Men are responsible to God, women are responsible to their male head. This is the crux of the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy described in Ephesians 5:22-33.

According to God’s ordained order, men and women have many responsibilities that are sex specific.  Overall, men have a responsibility to lead, and women have a responsibility to follow.  But whatever the case may be, submission to Headship is an integral part of a woman’s moral agency.

These roles are dependent on each other, in that when men lead, it is easier for women to follow, and when women follow (through obedience, submission, and respect), it is easier for men to lead.

At the same time, these roles are also exclusive from each other, in that men have a responsibility to lead whether women follow or not, and women have a responsibility to follow whether men lead or not.

D. Bradley pointed out that if women are to be good followers and helpers, then it is necessary for women’s expression of agency to be focused on submission and cooperation, rather than on making difficult moral judgments which falls under the responsibility of her Head.

So we see that Trust figures largely in the answer.  Trust must first begin in one’s trust in God and/or an authority figure (e.g. father, husband, pastor, mentor, etc.). Trust grows among men in community / Christian fellowship, and this fosters and nurtures trust between men and women. Shared enterprises, shared values, and shared purposes expediate trust and provide a vehicle for it to grow. Sin disrupts trust and weakens the authority structure.

3. Women’s Moral Agency in Terms of Maturity

In the past, Manospherians have assumed that the answer to the question of whether females possess moral agency is a binary solution set.  That is, either women do have moral agency, but they fail to exercise it, or they don’t have any agency at all.  But the real answer to this question is that any particular woman finds herself in a continual state of growth and development.  Hence, the answer is found within an infinite number of degrees and permutations, depending on the woman herself.  The variance in case by case is shown in Zippy’s distributions.

Nevertheless, it can be summarized in a nutshell, Moral agency and maturity go hand in hand — agency is dependent upon her spiritual maturity, and to a large extent, her spiritual maturity rides on her faith, as expressed in her ability to love, serve, and submit to God and the man in her life, as well as her ability and willingness to recognize, foresee, and resist temptations.

However, just because a woman is mature, doesn’t mean that she will go to the effort to employ the moral agency she possesses.  This goes back to the degree of faith she has within a particular arena of her life and her commitment to please the Lord and her father/husband.

So the answer to the Manosphere’s old question is not whether females possess moral agency or not, but rather, the degree to which any particular woman has grown in spiritual maturity.

4. Women’s Moral Agency in Terms of Culpability

Deti cornered the subject of Women’s Moral Culpability in his two posts and all his comments.

A typical man’s gut reaction to the Red Pill is to regard women somewhat as evil psychopaths.  This response comes from a male’s projected expectation of women to possess an agentic moral capacity equal to that of a man’s.

Indeed, after all the studies in this series, it is evident that women DO have Moral Agency.  All the facts and logic put the onus on women to correct their behavior and fall in line with God’s created order.  But what we see is that Women will resist it all the way, kicking and screaming.  Thus, it’s up to a man to nurture her Agentic capacity and guide her towards maturity.

It may serve to help men if they adopt a tempered perspective on the issue, and embrace a general attitude of compassion, detachment, patience, and skepticism towards women, which is fundamentally grounded in the belief that women are helpless sheeple, truly having agency, but targeted by Satan, disabled by doubts and fears, and who are ultimately dependent on men and on God.  However, this is not to be construed as passively regarding women as Hypoagentic “victims”, but rather should be met with a redoubled effort to discipline and teach women through patient Operant Conditioning, with constant watchful care and guidance, as with a child.  The ironies of this will be covered in the next two sections.

I have continued to insist that charismatic Game* is necessary in dealing with immature women who are lacking moral agency and strength of character, and who cannot make life changing decisions responsibly.  Game is also necessary for dealing with mature women with moral agency who are in rebellion or when Trust is absent or tenuous.  The appropriateness of Game* and the nature of its implementation is highly dependent on the context — the constitution and character of a particular woman and the man’s relationship with her.

* Not to be confused with PUA style Game which is done for the purpose of exploiting women’s lack of agency.

Irony 1 – Men are the Instigators

“As always, don’t just listen to what people say, watch what they do.”

As I’ve been writing all the posts for this theme, I have come to the same idea. The assignation of Agency is more about people’s behaviors than what they actually say or even believe.

“A lot of men who claim that women have no moral agency hold women accountable for their actions.”

Yes, I’ve noticed this too, although it seems kinda rare. The interesting thing is that their belief that women DO NOT have agency is what motivates them to hold them accountable. Whereas, men who believe that women DO have agency tend to sit back on their laurels with the expectation that women will exercise agency of their own initiative. But the interesting thing here is that women don’t work that way. Usually, whenever you see a woman who actually exercises agency, somewhere in the background there is a man providing the framework / guidance / initiative / incentive / motivation for the woman to be that way.

“In so doing, these men prove that they actually believe that women do have moral agency.”

Yes, but this belief is shown in practice, not in cognition. They may very well have no awareness at all about this difference. This is an example of how people can believe falsehoods in their heads that actually reinforce the practice of truth in their lives. Similarly, people can believe truths in their heads, but have no idea how to practice those truths in their lives.

Irony 2 – Women are Responders

Oscar wrote,

“Where a lot of “Red Pill” men go wrong is that they believe the same lie a lot of “tradcon” men believe – women are responders.”

This contains another irony. Women really are responders, so it’s not a factual lie. The lie comes into play when men get the notion that the woman is like a vending machine, as Oscar described.

“In other words, they treat women like they’re machines – give them the “right” input, and they give you the desired output. People don’t work that way. They never have.”

Then when her knees don’t automatically spring open they get bogged down in the details of the mechanics, thinking they didn’t push the right button or pull the lever at the right time, etc. It’s a very naive view of women that leads to the “dancing monkey” impression surrounding charisma, Game, and giving feedback.

This is the same lie that Red Pill grifters use to get men to keep buying their stuff, paying for subscriptions, etc. “You didn’t do X right.”

People also get similar ideas about God — that if they do X, Y, and Z, then they’ll get something they desire or some other kind of blessing, similar to the Prosperity Gospel.

At its root, it’s a works-based mentality, or worse, a Covert Contract.

The truth is that men need to give women dynamic feedback and use Operant Conditioning to lead them towards redemption, regeneration, and Truth.  Employing Operant Conditioning with the aim of helping women escape solipsism and exercise agency is essentially what it means to “love your wives” (Ephesians 5:25-331 Peter 3:7).

Conclusions — Do Women Have Moral Agency?

At the beginning of this series, we’ve posed the question, Do women have moral agency?

Catacomb Resident gave us the answer to the question early in the series, but it seems that most of us didn’t catch the full meaning of his words until later on.

“…it’s not a question of whether women have moral agency, but how much. And a biblical covenant would assume that women are better off being restricted to protect them from themselves. Yes, God granted women some moral agency; He does hold them accountable for their sins. Yet He has tasked His Covenant people with building an atmosphere to account for the differences between female moral agency and that of males. God holds men accountable on a different level.”

Catacomb Resident: Moral Agency (2022/11/3)

This falls under the category of Headship, and Biblical Headship is the answer, which was Red Pill Apostle’s take.

The question as it pertains to men is how to deal with it.  I will address how men should respond to this in tomorrow’s post.

I hope that this series has provided many valuable insights to my readers.

In the comments, I would like to know if readers have learned anything other than what I’ve summarized above.


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, Authenticity, Charisma, Collective Strength, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Discipline and Molding, Fantasy and Illusion, Female Evo-Psych, Fundamental Frame, Game, Game Theory, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Inner Game, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Perseverance, Personal Domain, Power, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Control, Society, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, Teaching, The Power of God, Trust. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to What we’ve learned about Female Agency

  1. Lastmod says:

    All I learned is that this is another layer on the vast “Cake of Game” that is beyond the comprehension of most men.

    Also…. all the pictures you use…. not just on this posting… I know of no men or women in my circle who look like any of these people. Maybe that’s why I cannot relate. I do wish my life was like theirs, and that I looked like them.

    Commenters say IQ is falling. Commenters pick apart my comments to make me look stupid when my IQ cannot be “equal” to any of yours here — ever.

    Then you lament that men are not getting it and women I guess have agency “if she thinks you’re hot” because in the end she’ll be a doormat to anything you say.

    Jack. I read here and get more depressed. I try to wrap my head around this….. I don’t know Greek. I didn’t memorize the Bible like Oscar. I can’t be a leader in church because I don’t look like you all here and my sins are unforgivable. Oscar said that. No corrections by you or anyone. Must be true. Right?

    Then you tell me it’s all in the heart while at the same time I see little or no heart here towards women or men.

    I guess in the end I have to get off sites like this. It’s making me want to kill myself.


    • Oscar says:

      “I can’t be a leader in church because I don’t look like you all here and my sins are unforgivable. Oscar said that.”

      You’re lying again, Jason.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        You quoted Timothy and said my sin was unforgivable and grave because I didn’t take care of my “family”

        I read the quote, yeah….. you are right. I cant raise my brother from the dead and take care of him. I was far away when my parents died. Even if I became the most pious and ‘holy’ of men tomorrow… it wouldnt matter. Also, looking at the whole “predestination” thing that is talked about here. God evidently “knew” who he would welcome and who he would make in his image to reject him. Kind of pointless at this point to wonder about it

        ’nuff said. 😉


      • info says:

        Lastmod this website has comments saved. Then it shouldn’t be too hard of you to quote Oscar.

        You either do that or we assume you could be making stuff up.


      • Oscar says:


        “You quoted Timothy and said my sin was unforgivable and grave because I didn’t take care of my “family”…”

        You’re lying again. I never said that your “sin was unforgivable”.


        “Lastmod, this website has comments saved. Then it shouldn’t be too hard of you to quote Oscar.”

        He’ll never find such a quote, because I never wrote it.

        “You either do that or we assume you could be making stuff up.”

        It’s called lying. Jason does it habitually.


    • Genetic deterioration…


  2. Pingback: The general process of sanctification with moral discernment, moral agency, and mature theosis | Christianity and masculinity

  3. dpmonahan says:

    Thanks for this series Jack, especially your work on Zippy (RIP) who deserves to be better known.

    Low agency man: “The cop was an asshole!”
    Low agency woman: “The fathers of my kids are assholes!”

    Everyone recognizes the first but we have layers of chivalry clouding our vision with regard to the second. Both contribute to the downfall of society, and both need strong social and legal controls to keep them in line, but those controls have been systematically dismantled in America.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:


      Low agency man: “The cop was an asshole!”
      Low agency woman: “The fathers of my kids are assholes!”

      “Everyone recognizes the first but we have layers of chivalry clouding our vision with regard to the second. Both contribute to the downfall of society, and both need strong social and legal controls to keep them in line…”

      Yes, this is another topic that has come to our awareness in this series, but I have passed over it for the time being in favor of focusing our attention on Women’s Agency.

      We already know that men have moral agency just as women do (although different in scope), but what is not often pointed out is that men also neglect their moral agency just as women do. We see Men being blamed for not being hyperagentic enough to cover women’s hypoagency, but this is not at all the same thing as Male Moral Agency as I pointed out in today’s post, Men’s Role in the Mess. In fact, it is only a damnable distraction. There is little attention and hardly any reward given to the important expression of true masculine agency. Thus, the nature of this neglect between men and women is just as different as the responsibilities between men and women.

      Dalrock gave us many years of humorous insights about women’s hypoagency and the vanity of male hyperagency as showcased in Chivalry, but he would never put his finger on what Men should be doing instead. I hope to fill this void of understanding. Therefore, I will be placing relatively more attention on Men’s Agency / Moral Agency in future writings.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. thedeti says:

    In my mind, we’ve learned,

    — Women have reduced agency compared to men.

    — Women experience reduced consequences compared to men.

    This is consistent with women being “the weaker vessel” (I Pet. 3:7). That said, men are required to extend the “weaker vessel” courtesy only to their wives.

    I’m not required to treat Elspeth or Liz as “weaker vessels”, because I’m not married to them. I’m not required to love “women”. I’m not required to “respect” women at all. I’m required to “love” only my wife. I’m not required to “respect” my wife at all.

    All this means, that, biblically, women are intended to have lesser public roles than men are. It means that, biblically, a woman’s father or husband was ultimately responsible for anything and everything a woman did or said.

    Now, women claim full agency; yet at the same time demand lesser consequences. Women say “I did/said X but I’m not responsible for it. I should not suffer consequences for it because reasons.” So, they aren’t full agents after all. And women claim to want “nice kind good Christian men” but refuse to date, marry, have sex with, or bear the children of, said men. Again, not full agents.

    Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “Now, women claim full agency; yet at the same time demand lesser consequences.”

      If we remember nothing else from this series, we need to remember this fact. It’s also the most perfect demonstration imaginable of women’s complete lack of self-awareness.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. naturallyaspirated says:

    A lot of work writing and reading to come back around to the idea that we all knew at the beginning: she is the oldest teenager in the house, acting best within that structure and guidance supporting her.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:


      “A lot of work writing and reading to come back around to the idea that we all knew at the beginning: she is the oldest teenager in the house, acting best within that structure and guidance supporting her.”

      Yes, it is amusing to find that our general conclusions are not far removed from our initial assumptions. However, we have found many conditions, relations, and other details that we were unaware of before, and most (or all?) of the preexisting questions surrounding women’s moral agency have been explained. All of this allows us to understand why there are so many different and seemingly contradictory assessments of the matter, and to place each viewpoint into the proper context. It has been a monumentous task to sort it all out, but it is not without value. Being certain of these matters allows men greater confidence in dealing with women.


    • feeriker says:

      “…she is the oldest teenager in the house…”

      Which just prompted a thought: Is anybody here giving her an “Oldest Teenager In The House” t-shirt (or pajama set, or nightgown) for Christmas this year? 😁🎄

      Liked by 1 person

      • Chokingonredpills says:

        Chances are such a T-shirt or pajama set would fly off the shelves if they are found in the Men’s section instead of the Women’s.


  6. Rowena says:

    Just to add one more thought

    Sin is sin — The forbidden fruit was the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD AND EVIL. Eve may have been punished for her disobedience but ALL people — men and women — know what sin is. No excuses. Which is why ALL men and women need a Saviour — Jesus. If she is not a sinner, she does not need a Saviour.

    Whether a woman has moral agency or not; is capable of moral agency or not; the degree to which she exercises moral agency or not; whether she is spiritually mature or not; whether she is deceived or not; whether she was badly led by the men in her life or not; whatever the excuses, rationalisations, and reasons — there is not a SINGLE verse in the Bible which says that GOD does not hold women ACCOUNTABLE for sin — ANY sin.

    Whether my father / husband hold me accountable for my sin is TEMPORAL. GOD looks at MY Sin and holds me ACCOUNTABLE. And that judgment is ETERNAL. THAT is the most sobering truth of all.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Exactly. And I think this absolution of responsibility is responsible for more eternal damnation for women than many other things in history.

      Even victims are morally responsible for doing right by God. By turning to the Good and not toward opposing the genuine Good.


    • Oops! I didn’t mean to click “like.” Meant to click “reply.” I’m on my iPad.
      Why does God hold us accountable for every sin? Why doesn’t he give excuses?


  7. Pingback: Farewell to Kings | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: Complacency | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: Are Men Responsible for Women’s Behavior? | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: Glorifying God by Being Yourself | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: The Battle Within | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: 16 Bible Passages for Teaching Wives and Daughters about Male-Female Roles and Marriage | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Misplaced Motherhood | 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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s