Let’s look at some comments in response to “Limited Agency” that I’ve received this week.
It already treats women as little more than children. This is exactly what society believes:
Society infantilizes women, and I’m somewhat surprised that women—especially feminists—don’t find it absolutely insulting to be condescended to like that. I have no explanation for it.
Correct. This is why even though I acknowledge that God views men and women with equal agency, society does not and never will. This creates a tension that can never be truly resolved this side of heaven. I am not foolishly attempting to do so.
If women have limited agency (and I could accept that they do); then that means women have only that agency which men permit them to have. That means men get to decide how women exercise agency; where and when, and to what extent. That means if a woman somewhere wants me to do something for her; I get to decide the parameters under which I’ll do that thing. It also means she is required to compensate me for doing that thing in some way, even if said “compensation” is that she shuts the fuck up and does what I tell her and expresses gratitude in advance for my doing that thing.
It also means women are little more than children and are required their entire lives to be subject to men in authority over them, whether that’s her father, her husband, her adult sons, or other adult relatives. She is required to do what he says, when he says, how he says, at all times, in all situations.
This seems like a logical response, and it would be completely correct if there were only two agents involved. But the agency of men and women is not restricted to men and women only. It involves the State, the Church, and the community. It involves the entirety of society and culture, all of which who get a say in the matter to a greater or lesser extent. And with respect to the State, it gets the final say.
This is why men are—quite rationally—choosing to go their own way. To wit:
The other available option is men not marrying; and women not marrying
Indeed it is.
Now, it’s worth noting that if men stop doing things for women, the State can always try to force men in various ways to comply. Don’t think that by walking away you can shirk the responsibility, no matter how unfair it is. Society will enforce its rules of agency whether you agree with it or not. Be prepared, for example, to see some altered form of statutory (or common law) marriage.
You are seeing that now.
Men who “will never get married” but “live” with a woman, and they toss her to the curb if she gains weight……and they break up……in some states the man is still being forced to pay alimony and child support if children are involved.
“Marriage is just a piece of paper” they say and “meaningless” and what matters is that the couple lived like a “marriage”
There was an old wives tales in Vermont that if you went into a church after midnight with a girl over the age of 18 you could be considered “technically married”
There was and is no such law
but it was believed for a long time.
This seems like a logical response, and it would be completely correct if there were only two agents involved. But the agency of men and women is not restricted to men and women only. It involves the State, the Church, and the community. It involves the entirety of society and culture, all of which who get a say in the matter to a greater or lesser extent. And with respect to the State, it gets the final say.
This is why men are—quite rationally—choosing to go their own way. To wit:
Comment
The other available option is men not marrying; and women not marrying
Indeed it is.
Now, it’s worth noting that if men stop doing things for women, the State can always try to force men in various ways to comply. Don’t think that by walking away you can shirk the responsibility, no matter how unfair it is. Society will enforce its rules of agency whether you agree with it or not. Be prepared, for example, to see some altered form of statutory (or common law) marriage.
THIS & the Yes Means Yes law in California from 2014 was THE main reason why MEN voted for Trump in 2016, as most thought Hillary Clinton once elected would try to pass a federal version of it that would be in everyones home, and of course they feared that the GOP/republicans LGBTQ(that hated TRUE Conservatives like radio host Dr.Michael Savage who was the MAIN MAN backing Trump ) would go along with it to look ”good” as they did with(the mostly) Biden’s VAWA in ’94:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act or more likely this has a better explaination of Biden’s involvement in it since 1990-
{ The enactment of VAWA 1994 culminated an effort begun in 1990 to draft and pass what became this landmark legislation. Vice President Joseph Biden, then Senator from Delaware, initiated this effort when he submitted to Congress a preliminary proposal to address the issue of violence against women, sparking a long-awaited national conversation about violence prevention and services. Working closely with the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Legal Momentum (then NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund) brought experts and organizations together in the Task Force on the Violence Against Women Act to help draft and pass the legislation. This initial coalition has become the very large and diverse National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, which continues to collaborate to help draft and pass each VAWA reauthorization.}https://www.legalmomentum.org/history-vawa
& then the GOP/republicans LGBTQ says ”what happened to da marriage & birth ratez!?
As if they didn’t know the Greater uniparty LGBTQ plan®, they were and are a part of.
”Yes Means Yes law
In 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the “Yes Means Yes” bill, which requires colleges in California to have clear sexual assault policies that shift the burden of proof from the victims to the accused. The “Yes Means Yes” movement stems out of the “No Means No” movement that was created in the 1990s by the Canadian Federation of Students in order to combat sexual violence.[4]
The original movement focused on the idea that when two people are engaging in sexual intimacy, if the word “no” is not present then their sexual acts are consensual.[5] This belief led to ambiguity in court cases that pertained to sexual assault allegations.[6] With the “Yes Means Yes” law in place, affirmative consent is now defined as, “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.”[7] This law is to be enforced on college campuses throughout California, and clearly outlines that consent is received through a verbal or physical “yes”.[5]”
& https://web.archive.org/web/20151016081830/https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/14/adults-hate-affirmative-consent-laws-the-college-students-i-meet-love-them/
”Adults hate ‘Yes Means Yes’ laws. The college students I meet love them.
The hand-wringing from the grown-ups doesn’t match what I see on campuses.
Resize Text Print Article Comments 340
By Jaclyn Friedman October 14
Jaclyn Friedman is the editor of “Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape” and author of “What You Really Really Want: The Smart Girl’s Shame-Free Guide to Sex and Safety.”
(Image courtesy of Flickr user Teh Moneda)
Last month, Michigan became the latest state legislature to introduce a “Yes Means Yes” law, mandating the teaching of affirmative consent as a sexual standard. In the past year, affirmative consent has become the mandated standard on college campuses in New York and California and is being voluntarily adopted by a growing number universities beyond those two states. The idea is simple: In matters of sex, silence or indifference aren’t consent. Only a freely given “yes” counts. And if you can’t tell, you have to ask.
Every time one of these bills is introduced, a certain subset of adults freaks out. Earlier this year, as the spring semester got underway and these new policies took hold on some campuses, Robert Carle, writing for libertarian outlet Reason, shrieked that “[a]ffirmative consent laws turn normal human interactions into sexual offenses,” as if there’s anything “normal” about a disinterest in whether or not the person you’re having sex with is a willing participant. In the New York Times, Judith Shulevitz dismissed the new standard because “[m]ost people just aren’t very talkative during the delicate tango that precedes sex, and the re-education required to make them more forthcoming would be a very big project,” an assertion for which she provides no evidence. But if students aren’t yet used to practicing affirmative consent, that’s no argument against it. Marital rape used to be both popular and legal, and we didn’t wait until everyone had stopped committing it to institute new laws. And in the Boston Globe, Wendy Kaminer protests that “in practice [affirmative consent standards] aim to protect women from the predations of men,” even though, as even she acknowledges, the standard is gender neutral. (More on that in a moment.)
All the grownup scaremongering is drowning out one important fact: Young people are embracing affirmative consent.”(so supposedly genius ” mastermind architects”can understand who said what)
See now the MAIN reason MEN voted for Trump in ’16?
This seems like a logical response, and it would be completely correct if there were only two agents involved. But the agency of men and women is not restricted to men and women only. It involves the State, the Church, and the community. It involves the entirety of society and culture, all of which who get a say in the matter to a greater or lesser extent. And with respect to the State, it gets the final say.
This is why men are—quite rationally—choosing to go their own way. To wit:
Comment
The other available option is men not marrying; and women not marrying
Indeed it is.
Now, it’s worth noting that if men stop doing things for women, the State can always try to force men in various ways to comply. Don’t think that by walking away you can shirk the responsibility, no matter how unfair it is. Society will enforce its rules of agency whether you agree with it or not. Be prepared, for example, to see some altered form of statutory (or common law) marriage.
THIS video tells more about how women don’t believe in equality but ”MEN must pr*vide!(still a dirty word if ”good” society/culture/women & ”fathers” are NOT paying their own bills)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqaPVF1jGiI
13 Minutes Of Modern Women Realizing They Were SCAMMED By Feminism
YET anyone believes those women & their dropping the ball ”good” society/culture/women & ”fathers” are NOT going to vote for more laws to force MEN to do what they want them to do?
”This seems like a logical response, and it would be completely correct if there were only two agents involved. But the agency of men and women is not restricted to men and women only. It involves the State, the Church, and the community. It involves the entirety of society and culture, all of which who get a say in the matter to a greater or lesser extent. And with respect to the State, it gets the final say.
This is why men are—quite rationally—choosing to go their own way. To wit:
Comment
The other available option is men not marrying; and women not marrying
Indeed it is.
Now, it’s worth noting that if men stop doing things for women, the State can always try to force men in various ways to comply. Don’t think that by walking away you can shirk the responsibility, no matter how unfair it is. Society will enforce its rules of agency whether you agree with it or not. Be prepared, for example, to see some altered form of statutory (or common law) marriage.”
All of that underlying (obvious)foundation to your first Limited Agency post seems to have been NOT obvious to the one(with a 142 I.Q.) who wrote the following:
”AWALT, Even Christian Wives
In spite of all the arguments conveyed above, DLR dedicated a fair amount of his essay to dispel the notion that women should provide value to men, based on his central claim that women lack the necessary agency to do so.
The reality of this is undeniably evident, he says, even though women are ordained by God to be men’s ‘helpers’ (Genesis 2:18, which applies to both Christians and non-believers), and apparently, he includes Christian women who are supposed to possess greater agency, as per his own argument (described in the previous section).
DLR goes further in this essay and also in other comments around the sphere to state that it is unreasonable for Christian men to expect their presumably Christian (but perhaps de facto feminist) wives to act agentically and/or provide value to their marriage, even though Christian women are supposed to possess greater agency, as per his own argument (described in the previous section).”
How does that 142 I.Q. person be so naive about ”Society will enforce its rules of agency whether you agree with it or not. Be prepared, for example, to see some altered form of statutory (or common law) marriage.”?
The old Roissy/Manosphere blogger/commenter Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech/PMAFT had a post where he said ”you and your wife/GF can have any sort of relationship( such as patriarchal, BSDM or NOT living up to feminist standards) you want, but if someone that, for example, comes to dinner at your home, can call 911 and say”I think a womminzlolzlolzzlzlolz is being abused by her husband/BF(when will y’all destroy him)?”As told here on Jolly ‘ole Englandhttps://safelives.org.uk/about-domestic-abuse/supporting-friends-family/
”Supporting friends and family
How you can help someone you care about who is experiencing domestic abuse
About domestic abuse Supporting friends and family
In this section
What is domestic abuse?
Domestic abuse response in the UK
Responding to perpetrators
Supporting friends and family
Reach In
Staying safe online
Get help and support
For many people, home isn’t a safe place. But we know it isn’t always easy for people to recognise domestic abuse in their relationships, and it can be hard to reach out for help.
If you’re worried that someone you care about is experiencing domestic abuse, you might not know what to say or do. You might be concerned about making the situation worse. Or you might find it difficult to understand why someone doesn’t leave. ”
Also, in light of (described in the previous section)”DLR criticizes the classic Christian Manosphere author, Dalrock, and his philosophical adherents, for asserting that women have (or can / should have) full agency, arguing that this notion conflicts with observed cultural (i.e. secular) norms and practices, and asserts that assuming or enforcing equal agency is futile outside a specifically Christian context.
However, DLR fails to acknowledge that Dalrock’s writings address women’s agency specifically within a Christian context, and that in this, DLR appears to agree with Dalrock’s stance that Christian women have (or are capable of having) a larger degree of agency. ”
This Matt Walsh video about ”womanosphere’s”Paige Connell who is a ”Working mom of 4 kids sharing her musings on all things, family, marriage, money, and the mental load.”, reminds me of Dalrock’s late(October/November) 2011 solo(without GBFM) posts success era & even more so GREATER with GBFM summer 2012 – summer 2015 golden age era of posts that got him most of that 26,378,806 page hits he had by the day his blog went down in early 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9GWUe58NVs
Viral Video Shows Wife Bragging About Almost Divorcing Her Husband
Matt Walsh
3.26M subscribers
Subscribe
25K
721,485 views Apr 4, 2025
My Fave part of that video?11:56 to 12:21 in. He explains that too many wives think that a ”MAN’s lack of complaints means he has none, NOT that he doesn’t want to burden her”
& my 2nd FAVE part?13:40-1600 in ”the woman works for lifestyle while in the majority of cases the MAN=husband works for livelyhood”!
Also MOD, you know what ”womanosphere’s” Paige Connell’s husband does for a living?You guessed! A utility lineMAN!
Like is oft recommended in the spherezlolzzlzlz!
My 3rd FAVE part in the video?19:44-20:04 where Matt says ”there’s no such thing as 100% equality in any marriage as MEN will bring unequal amount of things into it as well as wimminzlolzlolzlz!”(Sounding very Derek/DLR /RamMAN3000-like in that statement, do you agree?)
In my summary of Derek’s essay on Limited Agency, I wrote,
ProfessorGBFM responded,
It’s simple. If a wife chooses feminist societal norms over submitting to her husband’s authority, then she is NOT being agentic with respect to her marriage, and she does NOT provide value to her husband and family. Instead, she’ll tear it down. How then can she claim to be a Christian who is supposed to possess greater agency?
Jack,
If you are going to make up falsehoods about me, don’t expect a good faith reply to your comments. Please take down this comment:
I don’t know where you get this idea from, but it is false. It doesn’t even make sense.
First, I don’t control the acceptance or rejection of pingbacks that are created elsewhere when I cite other comments and blogs.
Second, I don’t believe I have ever disallowed an incoming pingback, as I generally don’t engage in viewpoint censorship here.
Third, I don’t receive many incoming pingbacks. Since I started this blog, I’ve received one from Texan Orthodoxy, one from Entropy Is My God, one from Soviet Men, and 44 from Sigma Frame (including one from a few days ago). That’s it entirely.
Peace,
DR
Jack,
It occurs to me that you might be referring to my use of “https://href.li/?” to hide the referrers of links. I most typically do this when I want to limit (or eliminate) the number of pingbacks generated on a post. I consider it rude to flood another site with many pingbacks. Generally one is more than enough (though sometimes I forget and let an extra one slip through).
This would be an odd criticism, as not having backlinks only hurts this blog’s engagement and has no impact on any other blog. Anyone is free to link to any article they want on this blog (sending me traffic) and short of banning IP ranges I have no say in the matter. On the other hand, you have no right to demand from me that…checks notes…I send myself traffic? It’s an odd criticism, to be sure.
You remain free to link to this site whenever you please, to read what I write here whenever you please, and even to write a script that parses the RSS feed for references to your site if it matters so much to you. You could probably get ChatGPT to write you a program to do it! See here.
Peace,
DR
ProfessorGBFM responded,
It’s simple. If a wife chooses feminist societal norms over submitting to her husband’s authority, then she is NOT being agentic with respect to her marriage, and she does NOT provide value to her husband and family. Instead, she’ll tear it down. How then can she claim to be a Christian who is supposed to possess greater agency?
Does that mean you agree with the following wisdom, then?:
”True Christian Women do Not Need to be Gamed: Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ
A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed. A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill:
16 Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bringforth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -Genesis
Indeed women no longer follow God, Jesus, and Moses, but their butt and gina tinglez. And the hilarious thing is that rather than trying to resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women, the “Christian men” such as Dalrock & Vox suggest that we all become slave to butt and gina tingelzozozizlzo and learn how to serve them first and foremost, over the teachings of Christ and Moses, as serving butt and gina tinzgzzlzlozolzoz over Christ and Moses is the heart and soul of game.”
If so, why did you once say to a commenter,”MENZ in the future will have to make wives out of feral wimminz in liberal cityscapes.”?
Blatantly contradicting what this wisdom says”why should i have to game someone into being my ”good Christian ”wife? Why can’t she be a good Christian on her own?”
Yet you tell MEN to make wives out of feral wimminz instead of having an ” ”agentic” wife that does provide value to her husband and family. And NOT tear it down? But be a helper like a wife in GBFMian and MOSESian Patriarchy(and even in supposedly DLRian & JESUSian”egalitarianism”) should be?
Jack has left 9 comments here since 2022 and none have ever been a “Reply” to another comment. Only once has he even left more than a single comment under an article. I’ve seen no indication or evidence that he reads the comments here. So, don’t expect a response.