Are women capable of agency?

[Fashus Maximus]

Stefan has previously said that the best thing you can do for a women is to hold them responsible for their actions. He usually uses this argument for when a woman does something wrong then blames it on everyone but herself.

Have any of you considered that maybe women are actually right? Perhaps women blame everyone but themselves because - they know but will never admit that - they are indecisive, low agency, cannot own their actions or their results, and therefore, require the approval and wisdom of a man for all things?

EDIT: My central argument is that "They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). [snip] they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things."

[Wuzzums]

[Fashus Maximus]

Baiting a debate in a philosophy forum is as logical as hoarding sand in the desert.

Do you have any useful contribution to make in reaching the truth on the Woman Question?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Stefan has previously said that the best thing you can do for a women is to hold them responsible for their actions. He usually uses this argument for when a woman does something wrong then blames it on everyone but herself.

Have any of you considered that maybe women are actually right? Perhaps women blame everyone but themselves because - they know but will never admit that - they are indecisive, low agency, cannot own their actions or their results, and therefore, require the approval and wisdom of a man for all things?

All you need is one exception to disprove their thesis. Maybe a lot of women want to be stripped of agency (and by extension liberty) for momentary comfort but who cares in the long run? Either they'll suffer for the consequences of their action (perhaps leading to a post-Holocaust-Jewish-like "Never Again" moment) or the men will seize control at some point and institute White Sharia (or an equivalent) which will inevitably implode on itself. 

Basically unless the majority of women join the majority of men as redpilled ad conscientious of the long term (after all the women raise the men so if women have no or limited agency then so do men because we're their byproducts) we're screwed.

Frankly it's easier to argue men have no agency because most men (especially White and Oriental men) do whatever women want in order to get laid. Obviously men have agency because we make choices. If you can make choices, you have agency by default.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

When you combine the biological drive to whine until men take care of things for you, and an upbringing where society generally doesn't blame you for your faults--that's a potent mixture right there. Sprinkle in some feminism and the concoction turns thermonuclear.

I would say we won't really know until the feminism and the un-blaming of faults gets pulled back to the bare biological bones.

I'm laughing my ass off at the title of this thread, just so you know.

 

[ofd]

Usually, women have a more pragmatic view when it comes to relationships than men. Men are more romantic while women tend to use relationships for social status or material gains.

[RichardY]

I suppose in 95% of cases probably not. Not exactly many female members on the forum as far as I can tell. If women are generally more agreeable than men, that has got to mean generally less agaency.

Women were not allowed to vote for reasons, that are all now too apparent. In Greece I heard that female children weren't generally spoken of, bit like the muslims trying for sons all the time. Even Ayn Rand said she found the idea that women being politicians or business leaders some what grotesque, though I guess there are the exceptions.

[Fashus Maximus]

14 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

they'll suffer for the consequences of their action

What are the negative consequences of deferring to a man? I only see happy women in that picture.

14 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

If you can make choices, you have agency by default.

Which begs the question, can women really make choices? I see no evidence to support that claim. Can you point to an instance where a woman made an independent decision of her own volition?

14 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I would say we won't really know until the feminism and the un-blaming of faults gets pulled back to the bare biological bones.

What you're describing was the norm in all K-selected history until a foreign ethnic group released its communist intellectuals upon us. Until that point, the lack of agency in women was assumed.

So, would you say that the historical evidence supports my thesis?

6 hours ago, RichardY said:

If women are generally more agreeable than men, that has got to mean generally less agaency.

Women's agreeableness is the personality trait that my thesis is founded on.

The behavioral pattern I see in history is that women - without exception -  defer to whoever they perceive to be the stronger men. This explains why until 2 years ago, women deferred to black and Muslim men and why we are regaining our status now that Trump - an unapologetic alpha - is in office. It also explains why there are now more Alt Right women than ever since Charlottesville.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

42 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

What are the negative consequences of deferring to a man? I only see happy women in that picture.

Not what I meant. I meant in the context of virtue signalling, wasting away youth and fertility, and other suicidal tendencies.

42 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Which begs the question, can women really make choices? I see no evidence to support that claim. Can you point to an instance where a woman made an independent decision of her own volition?

Go to Macey's and watch a woman pick out a dress. BOOM. She can make choices, therefore agency. 

[neeeel]

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

 

Which begs the question, can women really make choices? I see no evidence to support that claim. Can you point to an instance where a woman made an independent decision of her own volition?

Unless you have a very unusual definition of choice, then you would have to say women make choices all the time.

[Jsbrads]

Yeah agreeableness does not indicate lack of agency. That just means they would rather choose to go out with friends, than stay home and type on a computer to a bunch of annoying guys here

women Choose men and most of them adamantly take control of child-rearing and are willing to argue where the welfare of their children come into play. 

Yes they make different choices than men. That doesn’t in any way indicate differing levels of agency. 

[Fashus Maximus]

@Jsbrads agreeableness is a nice way of saying conflict avoidance. A decision is making a choice. Women feel threatened to do anything other than go wherever the wind blows. That's not choosing, and therefore not a decision.

In your example, women who are in circles where whore-ism is the norm, are also whores. Women born in traditional circles are normal. When did these women decide anything?

On 12/18/2017 at 2:28 PM, neeeel said:

women make choices all the time.

such as?

[neeeel]

2 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

such as?

again, perhaps you are using a different definition of choice. At a basic level they are choosing what to eat, what to wear, where to go, who to talk to, what to say, and so on.

Or are you saying that they are robots that respond purely to programming?

[Fashus Maximus]

1 minute ago, neeeel said:

again, perhaps you are using a different definition of choice. At a basic level they are choosing what to eat, what to wear, where to go, who to talk to, what to say, and so on.

I defined it as such:

4 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

A decision is making a choice. Women feel threatened to do anything other than go wherever the wind blows. That's not choosing, and therefore not a decision.

They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness).

As per Jsbrad's whore example, women in whore environments eat whore food, wear whore clothing, go to whore clubs, talk to their fellow whores, and say whore things. Whores perceive it a threat to them should they choose to do otherwise. To contrast, men do not perceive it as a threat to go against the tide. It's just choices, risks, and consequences for us, nothing life and death.

So no, I'm not saying that they are programmable robots. I'm saying that they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things.

[neeeel]

7 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

I defined it as such:

They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness).

As per Jsbrad's whore example, women in whore environments eat whore food, wear whore clothing, go to whore clubs, talk to their fellow whores, and say whore things. Whores perceive it a threat to them should they choose to do otherwise. To contrast, men do not perceive it as a threat to go against the tide. It's just choices, risks, and consequences for us, nothing life and death.

So no, I'm not saying that they are programmable robots. I'm saying that they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things.

I dont get it. whats the difference between choice and decision. The way you are using it is interchangeable.

[Fashus Maximus]

@neeeel Choice: "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities." & Decision: "a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration"

Regardless of the word you want to choose, they can't be choosing or deciding if they believe to be coerced / threatened.

EDIT: You're right in pointing out the definitions. I initially said decision is making a choice, whereas it is the opposite. Hope that clears it up.

[Jsbrads]

They choose their friends, a spouse and their decisions vis a vie their children is less conflict avoidance and more rational protective and positive. They can be very unagreeable if you try to harm their children.

They usually care less about other things. Having a different set of perspectives, thought processes and motivations doesn’t mean that they aren’t making choices and have agency.

Men when are hungry they want food. Women when hungry tend to still desire good food that they are in the mood for. This sometimes leads to conflict.

Women are more concerned with appearance. Men often worry about things like performance of cars, computers and iPhones, even if they never tax their things. 

[Fashus Maximus]

@Jsbrads, @Siegfried von Walheim, you both are making the argument that if they can choose, they have agency.

I'm saying they can't, because:

15 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). [snip] they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things.

Actions performed under (perceived) coercion are not choices. No choice, thus no agency.

Do you see how this explains so much of female behavior? Irresponsible behavior, total conformity, deferring to non-white males (since media portrays us as dumb cucks), etc.

Where am I wrong in this theory?

[RichardY]

I think in Northern Countries women generally have more agency. Need to split labour, for instance vikings going on raids often could use a good wife to look after the farm. So Norwegians typically have broad shoulders (ploughing), compared to many other ethnicities, as well as a good level of IQ to manage things. The difference is pretty stark when you compare to Sweden, more slender more agreeable in my opinion, a lot of government and state modelled on the French system/culture.

I think agency greatly declines in more southern ethnicities. Although as noted by C.G.Jung southern European women become more masculine as they age and the men more feminin.

[Ninja]

There is a clear distinction between having a vagina and submissive effeminacy. The latter is ideological and more susceptible to complete redefinition by a persons environment. 

[Jsbrads]

Bring all your “coercion” against a woman who has to protect her children from you, just don’t make it too easy by eating the food she makes.

She will find a way to end you. 

[Fashus Maximus]

1 minute ago, Jsbrads said:

Bring all your “coercion” against a woman who has to protect her children from you

Women in environments where spanking children are the social norm, either participate in spanking their own children or support their husband in doing so; unless they are exposed to a strong man who does not support the behavior.

So no, even when it comes to protecting their own children, they will only do so if that is what they feel threatened to do.

[Ninja]

On 2017-12-17 at 6:44 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Maybe a lot of women want to be stripped of agency (and by extension liberty) for momentary comfort but who cares in the long run? Either they'll suffer for the consequences of their action (perhaps leading to a post-Holocaust-Jewish-like "Never Again" moment) or the men will seize control at some point and institute White Sharia (or an equivalent) which will inevitably implode on itself. 

As Byron Katie would say 'flip it and look at the reverse'

Refer to South Park season 20 for a visual representation

[Fashus Maximus]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

I think in Northern Countries women generally have more agency. Need to split labour, for instance vikings going on raids often could use a good wife to look after the farm.

My argument is:

2 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). [snip] they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things.

In other words, they look after the farm as they perceive a threat in not doing so. Do you see how doing things under coercion is the opposite of agency?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 minute ago, Fashus Maximus said:

My argument is:

In other words, they look after the farm as they perceive a threat in not doing so. Do you see how doing things under coercion is the opposite of agency?

Same can be said of 99% of men. What is your standard for "agency"? It sounds like it's "if you have the balls to be the black sheep, you have agency" but very few people do therefore few people have agency therefore most people are children to be herded by a benevolent shepherd therefore totalitarianism. Are you prepared to make the case for most people being manually directed in life by a central agency?

[RichardY]

@Fashus Maximus Perceiving a threat is related to Neuroticism, also higher in Northern Europeans. Multiple things in nature than can kill you in colder rocky climates or even warm rocky ones before you can sire offspring.

As for coercion depends how women are coerced. In less hospitable climates you'd farm, produce something of value to trade(other than more mouths to feed) or you die. A viking warlord may have concubines, but they got cremated along with him when he died (meagre resources, one big drunken orgy before you're killed), with the result, those with less agency being removed from the genepool proportionally. Iceland & Norway were the first countries to get rid of serfdom effectively in practice, although there maybe a token rent (1 loaf of bread a year), plus the church & monarchy excercised some muscle over landing fish for processing.  

Biologically women will always be secondary to a man in agency, but some ethnicities have more agency than others. Maybe in really hard climates, warfare situations women may form together in groups to try and preserve what agency they have, Amazons, Those Kurdish women in Iraq etc 

I heard somewhere that women in Mongolia are often quite independent and many have businesses, though I think that was on t.v so not entirely sure. Have to exercise some agency in practice when the men are away fighting. Or just because need to take care of herds in potentially -50c weather.

Even given a harem situation eventually some women will exercise more agency then a man. Empiress of China, Ottoman Turks, Byzantine Empiress. Or just being born to kill, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Isabella of Spain, although they had many advisors that probably exercised more agency through them as a figurehead. I think there was some Assyrian Queen that asked to be Monarch for a day, then killed her husband. 

[smarterthanone]

Women have so much anxiety and depression and stuff because they DON'T WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS BUT ARE FORCED TO DO SO. I've written about this on other posts and usually everyone laughs at me and down votes me but find some feminist girl, grab her by the hand and drag her where you want to go, tell her what to do when you get there and she will go right along and love every second of it. This is why women WILL NOT LEAVE CONTROLLING ABUSIVE MEN, the pleasure they receive from having no responsibility or choices is so great, they won't leave because other men are too nice and don't keep them under their thumb and its terrifying for them to face responsibility.

Test if you don't believe me. Next few times you go out with a girl, try the following things:

1. Ask where she wants to go out to eat.

2. Tell her where she wants to go out to eat.

See which works better. 9 times out of 10, telling a woman what she wants is what she wants.

[S1988]

I don't think it's fair to paint all women with the same brush. I'm a woman, and one of my pet peeves is  being told what to do because I can't stand coercion since it's been done to me most of my life. Even as a little kid, I would scream and cry my eyes out when I was forced into something. When I was a bit older, I would react with anger when told to do something I didn't want to do, and it'd get me in trouble. For years, I struggled with assertiveness because I feared being punished for my "bad attitude," but I eventually learned that if I continued to worry about being "mean," then I'll be pushed around for the rest of my life. Cutting out my family was the first step to standing up for myself because they only wanted me to be a tool for Queen Mother's unfulfilled dreams, and I believe people should be responsible for their own happiness, not live vicariously through someone else.

I also spend lots of time alone since being a loner gives me the freedom to be myself. I'm very choosy about who I want to be friends with because apparently I have a knack for attracting pushy/toxic people. (I guess it's because of my quiet nature, and others used it to take advantage of me.) After all, friendship should be voluntary, not mandatory. Because I don't like being forced into things, I'm hard to get to know (and to get along with sometimes). Every now and then, I face people who want to "save" me from my less-than-social lifestyle, and I find this aggravating because I don't want to be saved from something I don't need saving from. If they take umbrage to the fact that I'm quiet and aloof, then that's too bad. No one's my master, and I'm no one's underling.  

[RichardY]

@S1988 Bursting into tears generally not a good way of developing agency. My sister would often do that when she was young and she would then get what she wanted literally all of the time. Which was generally attention. No room for any reasoned arguments or questions, fustrating as hell. I know if given the option I'd have chosen to live with my grandparents.   

Men generally don't worry at all about being "mean".

Can I be your underling or slave?

[S1988]

37 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Bursting into tears generally not a good way of developing agency.

Well, it was all I knew. After all, I was just a kid then, and I didn't have much of a choice. Unlike your sister, I didn't do it to get attention; I did it because I was afraid. It made me a difficult patient during doctor/dentist visits because I knew what was coming.

37 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Can I be your underling or slave?

Er, no thanks. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Can I be your underling or slave?

I'LL TAKE YOU!!! 

First order of the day is to change your avatar into a Christmas themed one in celebration of the upcoming Winter Solstice and Christmas holiday. 

[RichardY]

7 hours ago, S1988 said:

Well, it was all I knew. After all, I was just a kid then, and I didn't have much of a choice. Unlike your sister, I didn't do it to get attention; I did it because I was afraid. It made me a difficult patient during doctor/dentist visits because I knew what was coming.

I guess I can sympathise a bit. My sister had eczema as a child, parents would bind her hands to stop her from scratching, also her teeth weren't straight. No such problems on my end. Also dentists in England in the past were paid by the number of filings they did, so both my parents probably had more filings than were necessary when they were children. Never was personally afraid of going to the dentist.

Could attention be a form of fear though? I can imagine Germans saying something like "Achtung Spitfire!!!" or some military drill "Stand to Attention!"(dis-ease) then "At Ease".   

7 hours ago, S1988 said:

Er, no thanks. 

Damn, perhaps it was worth a try. Men don't generally go around affirming their individual or collective autonomy, through public speech or remonstration. Any such thing is going to be met with a "Yes Boss". Men have to actualize things through action, not reaction. Not to say there isn't necessarily feminin attributes sometimes in men "Swallowed a woman?" (talk too much), but they have to bring evidence usually and not feeling. 

[S1988]

8 hours ago, RichardY said:

Men don't generally go around affirming their individual or collective autonomy, through public speech or remonstration. Any such thing is going to be met with a "Yes Boss". Men have to actualize things through action, not reaction. Not to say there isn't necessarily feminin attributes sometimes in men "Swallowed a woman?" (talk too much), but they have to bring evidence usually and not feeling. 

I guess my response was more towards being fed up with being pushed around most of my life, mainly by those who claim to care about me but act otherwise and then wonder why I don't call or visit. 

Like I said earlier, I spend a lot of time alone; therefore, I do a lot for myself, and I find unsolicited help a real nuisance, especially from "allies" who want to stick their noses in my life and attempt to "fix" things that don't need fixing.

 

[RichardY]

4 hours ago, S1988 said:

I guess my response was more towards being fed up with being pushed around most of my life, mainly by those who claim to care about me but act otherwise and then wonder why I don't call or visit. 

Like I said earlier, I spend a lot of time alone; therefore, I do a lot for myself, and I find unsolicited help a real nuisance, especially from "allies" who want to stick their noses in my life and attempt to "fix" things that don't need fixing.

 

Hey if its free stuff, its free stuff. But yeah if there's strings attached or more trouble than its worth, I'm not interested right?

I can go months probably years without seeing a single soul and being unphased. I think it's a trait present in many Northern Europeans.

Ecclesiastes

4 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
4 Again, I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit.
5 The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh.
6 Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.
7 Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun.
8 There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail.
9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.
11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?

[meetjoeblack]

On 12/17/2017 at 8:44 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

Stefan has previously said that the best thing you can do for a women is to hold them responsible for their actions. He usually uses this argument for when a woman does something wrong then blames it on everyone but herself.

Have any of you considered that maybe women are actually right? Perhaps women blame everyone but themselves because - they know but will never admit that - they are indecisive, low agency, cannot own their actions or their results, and therefore, require the approval and wisdom of a man for all things?

EDIT: My central argument is that "They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). [snip] they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things."

To quote Stef, "its not an argument."

"I don't need a man" is a cool feminist go to line until of course, women actually need a man. I am curious as to where things go when shit goes tits up. When war happens? When god forbid, biological warfare were to occur? 

 

The time for women and children first is over. If not my gf, wife, mother, family, ZERO FUCKS GIVEN! I am not a utility to extract resources from. I am not looking to play CAPTAIN SAVE A HOE when the MILKS GONE BAD, when PLAYBOY STOPS CALLING, and SMV HAS CRATERED. 

 

Thin/YOUNG/ATTRACTIVE = TOP FORM SMV or GTFO!