Post: #1

Many in the manosphere and specifically Stefan Molyneux stress the importance of moral agency in shaping our society. I believe most men understand this concept and generally adhere to it. However, my life experience has taught me that moral agency in women tends to be applied far more haphazardly by them. Basically, they often let emotions and feelings guide their decisions rather than apply moral agency.

Molyneux believes that through sound logic and reasoned arguments that he will be able to convince women that his perspective on saving Western Civilization, traditional gender roles, marriage, children, etc. is correct and the should then also apply this moral agency to their lives.

My question is whether this is a realistic or unrealistic expectation in women? I have my doubts about this becoming a reality. Because I see more women breaking away from traditional roles and opting for independent careers and a separation from the influence of men and by default their influence with such arguments.

But I do recognize that perhaps there are signs of some influence as evidenced in the US Presidential election where a large number of white women voted for Donald Trump. A candidate that at least on the surface supported many of these kinds of values. So again, what are your thoughts on this subject? What does your gut and life experience tell you about the direction of these things?

Post: #2

The quick answer to this is that he is incorrect; he has it backwards or possibly sideways. Let me explain:

"No bullshit" and logical thinking are personal and temperamental things that are overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, in men. Understanding that point will show you, however, that there will be no convincing of women en masse. You can bring healthy living and thinking out in women who will then utilize the same type of thinking and logic, or at least support it. But the established background (family or society with clear purpose) on which they can relate to and rely must be present.

As such, this is a project for men to convince other men the right way to think and act in solidarity and with purpose.

Using history as a guide typically this kind of thing also only starts again when it is re-creating societies from scratch after a major blow to the status quo that was by definition insane therefore had led to major blow. Sad to say it, but I think the evidence points to this being the universal reality.

Post: #3

It makes more sense to think of moral agency as a standard to which you hold yourself or others. Saying that women lack moral agency is essentially stating that the hamster is in complete control and thus a woman cannot be held responsible for her actions because she is essentially just reacting to external stimuli with behavioral patterns evolved to optimize the fitness of her offspring. Thus you get the standard cognitive dissonance of feminism: women are both empowered individuals and helpless children. The reality of it is that women have plenty of agency, and they see the rational value in weaseling out of being held to any standards when they can get away with it.

Post: #4

Women seem to have only one flavor of right-vs-wrong which is social justice, which in turn is an outgrowth of measuring virtue through martyrdom.

The social justice paradigm breaks down when it covers the rules of engagement in relationships. Because of hypergamy they will always cling to double-standards that lets them off the hook for cheating, being the other woman, or kicking a guy to the curb in a swift and cruel way. When the shoe's on the other foot they are hardly a paragon of composure.

Post: #5

In this way, women are between men and children. They're still mostly responsible on a moral level, but they're not responsible in terms of making good decisions in the face of "feelings."

Post: #6

As touched on above.

Women are not incapable of moral agency, but they are certainly less capable of it.

This means we can either control the outcome one of two ways. Either we remove women's rights as well as the expectation of male standards of behaviour (in essence treating them like children) or we hold them to precisely the strict standards that men are held if they want their vaunted equality.

The former is preferable in a civil society because it's more realistic, but for now we are stuck with the latter until this fuckfest implodes and a new order can be established.

Post: #7

The ways in which women are especially responsible are in the company they choose to keep when the choice becomes wide open for them, and in the environment (which job, city, university, etc.) they decide on when coming of age, especially if their life is going well. After that, they'll mostly coast.

Post: #8

(12-02-2017 11:53 AM)TIOT12 Wrote:  Many in the manosphere and specifically Stefan Molyneux stress the importance of moral agency in shaping our society. I believe most men understand this concept and generally adhere to it. However, my life experience has taught me that moral agency in women tends to be applied far more haphazardly by them. Basically, they often let emotions and feelings guide their decisions rather than apply moral agency.
Molyneux believes that through sound logic and reasoned arguments that he will be able to convince women that his perspective on saving Western Civilization, traditional gender roles, marriage, children, etc. is correct and the should then also apply this moral agency to their lives.

In general women are just as capable as men of moral agency. If raised with a certain code of conduct, women will internalize it and many will adhere to it even in the face of peer pressure. Religious women are a great example. The issue at hand is that your average Western Female was not raised with any serious moral compass. They are just given bullshit platitudes and maxims to live by. The idea of moral relativism is so entrenched within this group that what we are experiencing is an unhinged group of women who must each individually determine their own set of morals and ethics based on their own selfish whims.

Also... convincing western women to save western civilization is a pointless endeavor. The majority are convinced that things are moving in the right direction, because they don't care what's healthy... they just want what feels good.

Post: #9

You can only expect moral agency from people, men or women, to whom it has been installed properly - only from people who come from families with clear set of values. Don't expect anything but issues and confusion from bastards.

The problem of our times is is not women, but almost universal bastardy. Women with no fathers, weak fathers, fathers brainwashed by feminism or divorced fathers are all bastards. Don't expect anything from them.

Seek women with strong and sensible fathers with strong values and you will find women with integrity.

For men it's the same but you may often find a man who has found a good father figure somewhere else even with a bad or absent biological father. For women this doesn't happen because if they establish a relationship with another man it's sexual. Religious women who have found church early in life before becoming sluts and listen to celibate priests can be a rare exception.

Post: #10

There's what we expect and there's what we have to deal with.

Currently "equality under the law" is out best weapon against the morally bankrupt. Don't give out passes for bad behaviour when confronted by it simply because the person responsible was not capable of moral agency.

Always press charges, and always go for the kill.

Post: #11

Why do people make this about women, as if they ever have agency on the course of history at all?

This whole shit was brought about by men. History was made and undone by men. Rome was built by virtuous, ambitious and expeditious men, and it fell because of decadent, corrupt men, especially the leaders.

Feminism was brought about by (evil) elites men and so was the women's vote.

When the men are virtuous, so will the women. That's how it has always been in history.

Forget about convincing women to be moral. Try doing it to men first, and good luck with that. Some corrupt men and faggots disgust me way more than a fat feminist.

I fall short of my moral code many many times and I see other so-called "virtuous" men do the same.

Post: #12

Of course. We just don't teach it to them. By and large they're raised to believe that they deserve anything they want, that "feels good" is a virtue, and any problems they have the fault of someone else who is probably male.

Post: #13

(12-13-2017 01:48 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  Of course. We just don't teach it to them. By and large they're raised to believe that they deserve anything they want, that "feels good" is a virtue, and any problems they have the fault of someone else who is probably male.

Mostly agreed. I think women tend, by evolutionary design, to be able to rationalize their hypergamous choices, but that it's only because society/men enable them to act without consequences that women lack moral agency.

Post: #14

(12-13-2017 04:29 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  Why do people make this about women, as if they ever have agency on the course of history at all?

This whole shit was brought about by men. History was made and undone by men. Rome was built by virtuous, ambitious and expeditious men, and it fell because of decadent, corrupt men, especially the leaders.

Copied/pasted from reddit:

https://np.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comme..._the_west/

"Want to know how the endgame for the West will look like? Take a look at Romes decline. The following excerpt is from J D Unwins 1934 "Sex and Cultures", which describes how the dissolution of strict monogamic marriage leads to Romes downfall.

In the second century confarreatio disappeared, and for no less than seventy-five years it was impossible to find a man qualified to occupy, the priesthood of Jupiter, for the occupier of that office had to be the product f a confarreatio marriage. Free marriages became usual, made and broken by mutual consent. Indeed the will of one party only was sufficient for divorce, the intention to dissolve being communicated either byword of mouth or by messenger. There was no ceremony, no registration, no formality. Women were free from any trace of marital authority ; they/ could hold property and could- contract in their own name. The tutela remained, but a woman could appoint her own guardian, and the ingenuity of fashionable lawyers assisted them to escape the limitations which a nominal tutelage imposed. Even on these terms marriage became unfashionable, especially among the men—but perhaps it would be more just to say that marriage on these terms was despised, for there seemed to be few advantages to be gained, many' to be lost. A large number of leading citizens preferred a mistress (concubina) to a wife. A Roman concubina was not an additional sexual partner; She was a man's sole female . companion, sometimes his life-läng associate. The one great difference was that a freeman could take a freedwoman as a concubina but not as a Wife.

Augustus endeavoured to effect a change by the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea, but it is doubtful if his efforts to prop up a rotting -edifice. were successful. It took three years -to persuade the people to accept the law, which Muirhead describes as 'a voluminous matrimonial code, which for two or three centuries exercised such an influence as to be regarded as one of the sources of Roman law almost quite as much as the Twelve Tables'. Certainly the tone of many of its provisions -was contrary to the practices of - the first century. B.C., but the 'basis of sexual relationships remained the same—mutualconsent. The object .of the law was not to reintroduce compulsory continence, but to encourage fertility and to restore some order into the existing chaos. marriage with men and women of low character was forbidden; unmarried persons were , not allowed to benefit under a will; married childless people were permitted to inherit only half their legal share ; mothers of children were relieved of tutela; concubinage reCeived official sanction ; no divorce was valid unless a -formal declaration was made, before witnesses. Such was the tenor• of the proposals of the Princeps. Soon the emancipation of women received official sanction. The parental authority also was abolished almost completely.

Gradually- the old forms of government, outwardly preserved, ceased to function. The conzitia lost even the shadow of authority;, it was simply incapable of possessing it. It was the same with the senate. 'There can be little doubt', Sir Samuel Dill observes, 'that there were men who dreamed of a restored senatorial power. It is equally 'certain that the , senate was incapable of asserting it; The extension of sexual opportunity had done its work. The -Romans satisfied their sexual desires in a direct manner.. Consequently they had no energy for anything else.

[...]

Yet once more-there emerged a group of men who had spent their early years in an atmosphere of compulsory continence. I mean the Christians. They had survived many violent persecutions; eventually theyydominated the, Empire, which in the fourth century recovered the strength it had shown in the second century. The 'Edict of Milan may have been a political move, but Constantine was right -in thinking.that the Christians were the men-on whoni he should rely. Then the Christians in their turn changed their habits. In the matter of post-nuptial regulations they compromised with the civil authorities; they also encouraged, even commanded, their finest women to be sterile. Then the Teutons overran the Western Empire. These Teutons possessed, in regard to sexual regulations, the 'same absolutely monogamous ideas that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, and Romans had once possessed ; and later discarded."

Post: #15

I answer that, Since man is said to be the image of God by reason of his intellectual nature, he is the most perfectly like God according to that in which he can best imitate God in his intellectual nature. Now the intellectual nature imitates God chiefly in this, that God understands and loves Himself. Wherefore we see that the image of God is in man in three ways.

First, inasmuch as man possesses a natural aptitude for understanding and loving God; and this aptitude consists in the very nature of the mind, which is common to all men.

Secondly, inasmuch as man actually and habitually knows and loves God, though imperfectly; and this image consists in the conformity of grace.

Thirdly, inasmuch as man knows and loves God perfectly; and this image consists in the likeness of glory. Wherefore on the words, "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us" (Psalm 4:7), the gloss distinguishes a threefold image of "creation," of "re-creation," and of "likeness." The first is found in all men, the second only in the just, the third only in the blessed.

Reply to Objection 1. The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, "To the image of God He created him," it is added, "Male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). Moreover it is said "them" in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that "man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man," he adds his reason for saying this: "For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man."

S.T. I, 93, 4, ad 1.

Post: #16

Our society is not moral and most men aren't either.

Post: #17

Pretty much the same as the Nice guy syndrome. If you're nice and moral you're going to fail.

Post: #18

(02-23-2018 09:25 AM)Keepiticy2 Wrote:  Pretty much the same as the Nice guy syndrome. If you're nice and moral you're going to fail.

Typically spineless people with no drive for success will usually adopt a persona of total surrender and then try to reframe it as "being nice and moral".

The reality is that they're just gutless losers.

I've known 250 pound nice, moral guys that made their living tossing assholes out of bars with a smile on their face, and they were neck deep in pussy too.

There are plenty of nice, moral Christian men with thriving businesses and smoking hot wives.

Never conflate being nice and moral with being a gutless loser incapable of standing up for yourself.

Post: #19

(02-23-2018 10:03 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 09:25 AM)Keepiticy2 Wrote:  Pretty much the same as the Nice guy syndrome. If you're nice and moral you're going to fail.

Typically spineless people with no drive for success will usually adopt a persona of total surrender and then try to reframe it as "being nice and moral".

The reality is that they're just gutless losers.

I've known 250 pound nice, moral guys that made their living tossing assholes out of bars with a smile on their face, and they were neck deep in pussy too.

There are plenty of nice, moral Christian men with thriving businesses and smoking hot wives.

Never conflate being nice and moral with being a gutless loser incapable of standing up for yourself.

true. But in my experience, most nice moral guys are the spineless losers.

Post: #20

In a way this problem is a catch 22.

If men rule women and protect them, then women become more and more helpless over time as they never learn the consequences of their actions.

But if men let women rule themselves, then the stupid and selfish women will eliminate themselves from the genepool. Alpha widows, feminists, fatties, etc, all self-destructive female behaviors should eventually disappear in a world where women have agency.

Except here's the catch - going through this process of allowing women agency appears to be so destructive we are looking massive population decreases of once patriarchal societies. Will the society be able to survive a massive purge of its womenfolk? Seems highly unlikely.

Immigration solves nothing, and makes social survival much less likely. Immigrant women get churned out just as badly as the natives, but are far less loyal.

I think we all know our world is unsustainable, but perhaps it is selecting women who will be far more responsible and loyal to men in the future. Perhaps the human race is going through some growing pains right now. We'll get more independent women who can take care of themselves, but they will still be loyal to their men. The ones who don't will fail to reproduce and their genes will no longer exist.

Post: #21

(02-27-2018 10:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  We'll get more independent women who can take care of themselves, but they will still be loyal to their men. The ones who don't will fail to reproduce and their genes will no longer exist.

Bro not even in my wildest dream would I dare dream of this. I guess women like this do exist but they must be 5 or below so they are practically invisible to me.

The problem with "genes auto-purging" argument is that, in general women no matter how crazy will still follow their instincts and breed. For every 50+ single cat lady there's 2 girls marrying and popping kids. Thing is, these same bitches were ex-party hoes and carousel riders. They pop out kids while drinking vodka daily and feed themselves micro-wave food. Surprise surprise that autism in kids are so high these days.

There's just no incentives for women to be loyal to men, or for natural selection to do its job because of the fucking welfare state which encourage low-IQ breeding and punishes high IQ breeding. Until we get rid of the welfare state all our dream of feminine, thin and loyal women are just a dream.

In the meantime the best we can do is enjoying thin cute sluts with questionable moral characters. Or get really lucky with our screening/wife training and have air-tight game.

Post: #22

Quote:In the meantime the best we can do is enjoying thin cute sluts with questionable moral characters. Or get really lucky with our screening/wife training and have air-tight game.

Of course, my speculation has zero bearing on how we should live our lives. I'm looking at 10-20 generations out. In our lives, we are stuck with an unsustainable sexual dystopia.

When the high IQ people run out, the welfare state collapses and the poors starve. Nature always finds a way to cull the herd.

Post: #23

I think in this environment, men who understand game and utilize it everywhere in their lives will win out

As for women, only a small minority (around 10%) will ever have moral agency. 90% of them will not because they are not capable of it. Thus, the need for patriarchy!

Post: #24

We are hardly setting the environment where conforming to moral norms is beneficial to women, are we?

They can ride the carousel, get resources from big daddy/government and wife up and steal a successful dudes cash when they hit the wall.

In fact, the way things are set up now encourages a lack of moral agency from women to get what they want. And they want a lot.

Post: #25

(02-23-2018 09:25 AM)Keepiticy2 Wrote:  Pretty much the same as the Nice guy syndrome. If you're nice and moral you're going to fail.

The modern definition of "nice" is "pushover/unassertive."

If we go by that, you constantly lie about shit that bothers you by being passive aggressive, silent, or smiling and doing what they tell you.

If you are nice, you are not moral.

Having a moral code is not a weakness, unless you want to argue that everyone except psychopaths are pathetic losers.