http://therationalmale.com/2015/07/14/our-sisters-keeper/
Women and Moral Agency
For as long as I’ve read and commented on Christo-Manosphere blogs a common thread has cropped up again and again; the debate as to whether women have the same moral agency or the same accountability for it as men. I’ve always found it fascinating because for all my dealing in cold harsh observable facts I’ve never paused to consider that women might have some excusable reason for their ethically challenged behavior. In my own estimate Hypergamy isn’t inherently bad or good – it just depends on whether you find yourself on the sharp end of it.
My point here isn’t to reheat that debate, but rather to see how it feeds into the rationale that men are in some way responsible for what contemporary women have become, and how they’ll progress if men don’t assume some responsibility for women’s behaviors.
Hypergamy is pragmatic, but it’s also inherently duplicitous. It’s unjust and unforgivable to a guy who doesn’t measure up to his burden of performance. When you consider the War Brides dynamic it’s downright reprehensible, but we have to also consider the pragmatism in that dynamic. From a male perspective we want to apply masculine concepts of honor and justice to women’s action – and in the past there was a high price to pay for infractions of it – but are we presuming our concept of justice is one that’s universally common to that of women?
Much in the same way we were Blue Pill conditioned to presume that our idealistic concept of love was mutually shared by women I would propose that men’s concepts of justice, honor, and (from an intrasexual perspective) respect are dissimilar from those of women.
For women, whatever actions serve Hypergamy are justifiable actions.
All that needs to be sorted out is reconciling those action with the concept of justice held by men. In the intersexual arena, what best serves men’s imperatives is justice. Up until the sexual revolution the balance between the sexes’ concepts of justice was mitigated by mutual compromise – each had something to lose and something to gain by considering the other sex’s imperatives.
For roughly the past 70 years this balance between the two concepts has listed heavily to the feminine. Our age has been defined by women’s unilateral and ubiquitous control of Hypergamy, and as such it is women’s sexual imperatives that is biologically and sociologically setting the course for future generations.
Along with that unprecedented control comes the prioritizing of women’s concept of justice above that of men’s. We can see this evidenced in every law, social convention or social justice movement that entitles women to rights and privileges that free them of any accountability for the negative consequence their Hypergamously based behavior would hold them to in a concept of justice that men would have
StingrayVC 8y ago
Of course. Women made demands. They changed definitions. Men allowed these changes to take place.
We are all responsible.
Hypergamy is amoral. However, what women do with hypergamy can be determined as good or bad by society.
Yes, as it is men who came up with and normalized the concepts of honor and justice (They are inherently masculine concepts that women might be able to learn, but they aren't inherently feminine). The definition of justice is basically just behavior or treatment. Woman don't really have a standard definition of what just behavior is because it only applies to her feelings. This is something that cannot be defined concretely because a woman will define it in impossible terms, i.e. a sensitive yet confident alpha man. Which basically boils down to give me the feelings I want when I want them. This is a woman's definition of masculinity, at least today.
What you refer to as women's concept of justice is not just behavior or treatment. It is about power. Not morality. Power and justice are not comparable ideas.
Rollo-Tomassi 8y ago
I would argue that the just behavior predicated on 'feelings' will always default to whatever best optimizes women's Hypergamous impulses.
StingrayVC 8y ago
Yes, of course. But that doesn't make it "just" or fair. That would imply consistency in the definition. Women don't want consistent laws, they want laws that will give them the power to do what they want. Which we overwhelmingly now have and continue to get. But we cannot call this a woman's definition of "just'. Because it's not about fairness or morality. It is about power.
katiemonster 8y ago
Although, to be fair, women who support these laws (i.e. feminists) would call them "just." So it's not completely off base to refer to that as a "woman's concept of justice."
You're absolutely right about the underlying motivations, though.
StingrayVC 8y ago
Feminists would call a lion a mouse if it would get them what they want. The underlying motivations are all we can look at to begin to understand what is going on. Not the words the feminists use.
Definitions mean nothing to them.
katiemonster 8y ago
True. A lot of them do believe what they're saying, though.
StingrayVC 8y ago
Yes. Some believe they are squirrels. Believing it doesn't make it true.