And another one bites the dust...

[Speaker to Animals]

What do you want to call it?

[nmoore63]

What do you want to call it?

Just saying it’s not effective.

Not sure that I have a better word only that as far as word choice goes it is generally unpersuasive.

[doc_loliday]

What do you want to call it?

Just saying it’s not effective.

Not sure that I have a better word only that as far as word choice goes it is generally unpersuasive.

The word itself or the argument employed by using it?

[Speaker to Animals]

I think he means we are never supposed to discuss the fact that society in general does not impute much agency to women while imputing far more agency on to men than what reason allows in order to compensate.

In other words, it's probably too effective, not ineffective.

It's interesting in that it cuts both ways. When women actually do accomplish something, we instinctively strip that from them somehow in a way we do not do to men. The same biological mechanism used by dishonest women to escape culpability or to manipulate society into punishing an innocent man is what makes it difficult for honest women to receive credit for their accomplishments.

After all, if women cannot even be responsible for drunken sex in which both parties were drunk, then how can they be responsible for a complicated business merger? And if men are responsible for every God damned unpleasant thing that happens, then surely they also are responsible for all the great things that happen.

It's a shitty game to play.

[C-Mag]

In Divorce Court, men are legally only 3/5ths of person compared to a woman.

But that's the reality. A person has to be smart, know the laws and act accordingly. While in my local community, county and state carrying a loaded weapon is cool, I know if I travel to other states I have to modify my behavior or I end up losing.

[Speaker to Animals]

In Divorce Court, men are legally only 3/5ths of person compared to a woman.

But that's the reality. A person has to be smart, know the laws and act accordingly. While in my local community, county and state carrying a loaded weapon is cool, I know if I travel to other states I have to modify my behavior or I end up losing.

That's part of their hypoagency, though, and it works against them as well.

Women have all these advantages in court because so many of them play victim to get an advantage and enslave their ex-husbands for cash. They have a system where they need only make baseless allegations and the entire legal system, really all of society, has to bend over backwards to accommodate them. They can't be responsible for anything in court because the courts explicitly refuse to impute a shred of agency upon them.

That works in their favor in courts, but as soon as women are successful at something professionally, for instance, the same thing goes into effect. Society wants to conceive of them as objects that are acted upon rather than actors. This is why you will see batshit female journalists, while interviewing a successful female woman, ask what that successful woman owes feminism for her success. It can't just be because she is smart, talented, and she out-competed men. No, she owes feminism for her success because how else could she have accomplished this?


That's hypoagency.

Hyperagency is what happens to men. We are held responsible for shit that we should not even be held responsible for, usually that share of responsibility that was taken from women. Two people land in divorce court and you can be for damned sure that, in most cases, both parties are to blame to one degree or another. But the man is going to be held 100% responsible. The woman could have cheated and done all sorts of horrible things, and the court will simply opine upon what the man did to drive her to it.

I remember a story years ago where I first realized this was happening. A man and woman were in a custody battle. The woman drove the children off a bridge, killing his entire family. The newspaper stories were taking her baseless allegations of "abuse" and actually saying this man was so abusive he drove her to kill his children.

You can support this system or oppose it, but I don't see how you can deny it.

[nmoore63]

I think he means we are never supposed to discuss the fact that society in general does not impute much agency to women while imputing far more agency on to men than what reason allows in order to compensate.

In other words, it's probably too effective, not ineffective.

It's interesting in that it cuts both ways. When women actually do accomplish something, we instinctively strip that from them somehow in a way we do not do to men. The same biological mechanism used by dishonest women to escape culpability or to manipulate society into punishing an innocent man is what makes it difficult for honest women to receive credit for their accomplishments.

After all, if women cannot even be responsible for drunken sex in which both parties were drunk, then how can they be responsible for a complicated business merger? And if men are responsible for every God damned unpleasant thing that happens, then surely they also are responsible for all the great things that happen.

It's a shitty game to play.

Nope.

[Speaker to Animals]

Okay. Great discussion.

[nmoore63]

Okay. Great discussion.

If I had a better word to describe it, I would offer it. I can't think of one either.

Just saying I don't think that word is an effective word, as far as words go.

If you tell a random person women have Hypoagency, they are going to respond with "I know, women need more empowerment."
If you tell a random person men have a problem with hyperagency, they are more likely to repsond with something about men having too much power.

They are words that only are effective at communicating with others who are already red pilled if you will. Or at least highly familiar with the topic.

[Speaker to Animals]

The missing component I think is that we are not discussing what agency men and women actually have but what society imputes to them.

Also, I don't want it to seem as totally advantageous to women either. I think it is advantageous to dishonest women, but the women who deserve recognition and respect get cut down by it. I cringe every time a successful woman is asked what she owes feminism for her success. Nobody questions how fucked up that is. Imagine asking a male CEO what he owes some political ideology for his success, as if he did not accomplish anything on his own.