Women’s Capacity for Moral Agency

This is a follow-up to my recent article Game Versus the Reactosphere, and my video The White Knight, as well as an expansion on the concepts in another video, Men Are Responsible for Feminism; Esoteric Trad has written a response to my first article here, and Free Northerner published a similar piece to this one titled The Slut Event Horizon.

Women’s capacity for moral agency (or lack thereof) is seldom a question which is specifically addressed; neither here in the Neoreactionary/Manosphere circles, and certainly not in the culture at large.

In our case there are several reasons that it doesn’t come up: for one thing, it’s the Manosphere – a respite from the ceaseless mainstream maudlin over women’s issues.  Another reason is that the Red Pill embraces that old wisdom to try and “Change what I can, accept what I can’t, and know the difference.” Women are as women do, and crying about it isn’t going to fix it.  Ultimately all you can do is try and develop coping strategies to get the best result out of a bad situation, and when it comes to women these coping strategies are known as “Game” (this is what leads to allegations that Game is manipulative and “bad”, incidentally).

Further occulting this question is the fact that when women do behave morally, it usually manifests as submission to their husbands, making it very hard to pinpoint.  With men, our virtues and vices are out there in the open, pink and dangling; with women, they’re neatly tucked away.  As above, so below, and all that.

As for why the mainstream maudlers never address female moral agency… well, we’ll get to that.


Goodness and Virtue are interesting things; everybody says that they want them, but their actions speak otherwise: upon encountering a Vir, the typical response from the vulgate is loathing and wrath.  What people actually want are dumbed-down imitations of virtue, despite the fact that the results are schizophrenic.

Just look at how they treat Humility – not a Virtue itself, but as St. Augustine argued, the foundation of all the Virtues.

True Humility is when you stop trying to tell reality what it is, and accept that it’s bigger than you are.  It’s when you stop trying to dictate a narrative about who you want to be, and accept who you actually are.  It’s when you stop rebelling against Truth, even when it’s unpleasant, and – if you have the Virtue of Fortitude – it’s loudly declaring for the Truth, despite the the jeers of the offended masses.

The degenerate form of Humility – at least in its present form – is the Cult of Niceness.  It’s affirmation that every man’s opinion is valid, it’s the embrace of post-modernism, and it’s the acceptance of equality.

As a consequence, the truly humble are often called arrogant.

This twisting, this reversal, is something that plays out constantly.  Good is called Evil, and Evil is called Good.  Cause and consequence are swapped around, and the mobs obsess over symptoms, while glorifying the disease.

Let me tell you about an acquaintance of mine: he’s a man around the age of thirty who’s good looking, intelligent, charismatic, and physically healthy – and his life is in shambles.  Not too long ago he posted a twenty minute video on YouTube of himself crying over his broken heart – broken by a woman whom he’d only known online.  In his mind, his biggest challenge is that he works for minimum wage; his greatest blessing is a wide-circle of online friends who offer him emotional support.  On the rare occasions where he admits that he’s not living the life he wants to live (solipsism and pride seldom allow it) he’ll blame his lack of self-actualization on finances.

This man used to have a circle of real friends.  They actually did things to show that they cared about him (such as feeding him when he had no money) and they would have eventually helped him find a job where he wasn’t flipping burgers; but they also didn’t play into his pity-party, and despised the “Love of his Life” who broke his heart.  He chose to alienate them, in favour of his online codependence.  He still chooses to alienate them.  He was offered True Charity, and called it cruelty; he chose the false charity of lowered expectations, and it’s driving him into the gutter.

Poverty doesn’t cause degeneracy – degeneracy causes poverty.


This swapping of cause and consequence – of perpetrator and victim – is what’s playing out currently with the “Game is immoral” crowd.  The root of this complaint is Christian in nature; namely, that pushing someone into sin is worse than the sin itself:

Luke 17:1-2

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

And as far as that goes, I’m in full agreement: leading somebody into error is worse than making an error yourself… but who is it that’s “tricking” these women into sleeping around?

Given how heated this argument’s been growing, some emotional distance would serve us well; so instead of discussing Guy Game, let’s focus on its less contentious parallel – Stripper Game.

It should go without saying that Stripper Game is often used for the exploitation of men: it tricks them into the Provider role for a short period, causing them to spend several hundred dollars on lap dances, which they could have used to benefit themselves or their progeny.  It’s quite a racket these dames have got going for themselves, and while men like Paul Elam will argue that Stripper Game is easy – “Just get naked, go out and shake your butt.” – any experienced Lady of the Night will tell you that there’s far more to it than that.  While I can’t claim to know all the details, the specifics don’t really matter – not for our purposes. We’re concerned about the core.

Let’s take a page from Marcus Aurelius and ask “What is its nature?  What are its habits?  How does this creature act outside of the Strip Club environ?” To hear the Ladies giggle, they’re experts at manipulating their marks and going home with thick wallets, but does this Stripper Game work when it’s relocated to the marital bed?

The answer is a resounding Yes!  The flirtatious allure, the sexual display, the feminine affirmation of the masculine – all of these serve the immediate goal of baby-making, as well as the higher purpose of motivating a man into becoming a Provider and Protector.  There are variations in tactics, of course, minor differences in detail between the Strip Club and the bedroom, but the core of Stripper Game strategy remains the same: display the greatest  femininity possible, so as to inflame the masculine.  Stripper Game is itself amoral (rather than immoral), but at its core is a study of Feminine Submission – something which is, in itself, Virtuous.

Stripper Game is a tool-box – not a single tool (“When all you have is a hammer…”).  Whether its usage is good or ill depends upon the particular tool, and upon the situation where it’s employed.

So if Stripper Game itself isn’t wrong, but the Strip Club is, we then have to ask who is responsible for it – the strippers?  Or the marks?

Who is driving this behaviour?

To answer this question we need to don on our Economic Punching Daggers.


That Economics must be called the “Dismal Science” says much about our race; for when Carlyle labelled it thus, he clarified that he meant it in the sense that “find[ing] the secret of this Universe in ‘supply and demand,’ and reducing the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone.” In other words: “How dare the Universe undermine our conceit!”

Like other forms of Natural Law, the Dismal Science is, more often than not, applied precisely in reverse.  The economy’s two sides are production and consumption – and it is the former which leads to the latter.  An economy without production cannot have consumption, and it is the productive side of the equation where all the hard work, talent, an infrastructure lie; wealth flows from production, to consumption.  And yet the knee-jerk reaction to an economic recession is to punish the productive classes, while subsidizing the consumers.

Vice flows in the opposite direction.

Vice is when the consumers demand a product which is bad for them, whether it’s drug addicts demanding drugs, or the obese demanding sugar water.  The productive side of the economy, with their massive brains and brilliant machines, respond to such demands, and gives the public what it wants.  The public then complains that they’re being sold poison.  The inevitable response is to pull a Bloomberg and levy a fine on the producers, while doing nothing to address the consumers who started this whole mess in the first place.

Production drives the economy, but demand determines the production.  Coca-Cola didn’t pump out a million bottles of soda, and then try and trick the public into buying them – the public demanded, and Coca-Cola produced.  Bottling soda may not be the noblest pursuit in the world, but it’s a far cry better than being an obese glutton!

The Strip Club would not be in operation were it not for the hordes of clientele who are desperate to throw away their hard-earned dollars on a lap dance.  Game would not be so popular if there weren’t massive numbers of women trying to sleep around.  You can attack the providers of Game – be they players or strippers – all you want, but this won’t make a dent in the demand.

Crack down on drugs, and new drugs come out.

Crack down on prostitution, and the prostitutes get uglier and dirtier.

Crack down on soda, and fat people will eat more cake.

The whole situation with the modern dating market is ugly, granted, but when you crack down on Game, you’re attacking the only people displaying any virtue in the first place!  You’re alienating the best of a generation, and pushing the sluts towards even seedier sex practices.

You’re doing it backwards.


All of this wraps back around to the question I asked at the beginning: do women, fat people, and drug addicts have moral agency?”

In a certain sense, this is a matter of faith; a binary moral choice.  Are you a Human Being – or a Marxist?  It’s not a question of evidence – the choice between robotic meat on the one hand, and ensouled being on the other, is epistemological in nature – but assuming you picked the box marked “Good” we can at least look to what our ancestors wrote on the matter.

As I’ve written before, the Garden of Eden is a parable of our race and our biggest flaws: our tendency to get the sexual relationship backwards, and make fools of ourselves.

Genesis 3:13-19

And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Eve, the hypergamous fool, always wanting something better, allowed herself to be misguided by the serpent; Adam, the weakling, allowed his wife to lead him, and ate the apple to please her, even though he knew it was folly.  And God punished both of them.

If Adam had led one of his beasts astray, would God have cursed its lineage?  Of course not; the beasts were his to name and own, at most it would have been destroyed.  Eve, though, was his wife – his to lead, but not to name or own.  Created – not of the earth – but of his flesh to be his helpmeet.

“The serpent beguiled me,” she said – the eternal excuse of woman.


The real clincher on all of this is that – even though women are more than willing to proffer this excuse for their behaviour – “He tricked me into doing it, I’m a victim!” – if you pay attention to the context, they don’t actually believe it themselves.

A woman who goes by the handle Emashee – and who I’m sure is higher quality than most of the women out there – falls into Eve’s trap:

Notice [that the woman in the article I quoted said] ‘I can’t tell him I don’t want him on my own.’  This is a pattern you’ll see in all used and easy girls—they can’t stay away from the Alpha male, which is why they keep running back to the same abusive jerks, or, like this girl, continuously have sexual connections with guys who won’t remember them in a week or two. Women often don’t know what they’re doing and are frequently unable to make good decisions without a man’s help. All the men this girl has been with know what they’re doing, and do it again and again and again.

At first this all sounds sensible – after all, isn’t trusting a woman not to cheat on you like trusting a dog not to eat a steak you left lying out on the counter?  But there are two important differences: first of all, dogs don’t construct arguments about how you shouldn’t leave steaks out on the counter (and how if you do, it’s not their fault if they eat it) – and second, dogs can be trained to subsume their will into your own!

Women, on the other hand, cannot; they are always a wild card.

As I alluded to at the beginning, practising Game gives us tunnel vision; we become so accustomed to manipulating women, that we forget that this manipulation is premised upon their consent.  Like the Stripper who “manipulates” a man into paying for a lap dance, we’re “manipulating” a girl who’s already looking for casual sex.  It’s not brainwashing;, and it isn’t magic; at the end of the day, it’s nothing but salesmanship.  And while the top 1% of salesmen might be able to sell refrigerators to Eskimos, the smart money’s on selling them to Texans.

On the surface Emanshee is arguing that women lack moral agency, but she doesn’t truly believe this; if she did, she wouldn’t be writing in the first place.  If women lack moral agency, then the only reason Emanshee is writing is because a man told her to.

Which, I suppose, is a possibility.  If you’re a follower of Karl Marx.


Let’s close out this piece by returning to the question, “Why doesn’t the mainstream address the issue of women’s capacity for moral agency?” It’s the same reason which underlies every other foolish thing we do; when the cart’s broken, we blame the horse.

Real Virtue involves accepting responsibility and moral agency; it’s admitting that “When you choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences.” It’s one thing to make mistakes due to a lack of information – there’s no way to avoid that – but most of the mistakes people make occur despite a gut feeling pointing the other way.  As soon as you accept moral agency, all of a sudden the fat man, the slut, the single mother, the welfare bum, and the career criminal are no longer victims to be lauded – they stand naked, suffering the cold gaze of Justice which they deserve.  It’s a humbling experience – and nobody likes people who are humble.

So instead we pretend to be victims of our own circumstances.  Eve was the victim of the serpent.  Adam was the victim of Eve.  Sluts are the victims of Game.  And Betas are the victims of Sluts.  On, and on, the Idiot Parade goes on, pointing fingers, and never looking in the mirror.

If you’ll forgive me one last Bible quote, my brothers:

Matthew 7:3

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

There are more productive uses of our time.

Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

20 Responses

  1. Moishe says:

    A preliminary overview of Chad’s article suggests to me, as a Jew, that if you’re going to base your philosophies solely on the teachings of the New Testament, you will end up with a narrow viewpoint of what true humility is.

    One of the problems with the New Testament (vs. the Old Testament), is that there isn’t nearly as much extrapolative study of it as there should be, and this is due to the nature of Christianity, the teachings of which were intended to free captive populations.

    I generally like your work Aurini, but if you’re going to base your articles on religion, I feel this is an area where you fall drastically short and where you will eventually stumble. No insult meant, this is purely intended as constructive criticism.

  2. Aurini says:

    Appreciated, Moishe.

    FTR – when Jesus said “I didn’t not come to overturn the law, but to fulfill it” – that’s often mistaken for “Derp, don’t gotta read the Old Testament,” which seems to be what you’re saying.

    Sometimes we can develop as a civilization and move beyond the letter of the law – Gene Roddenberry misinterpreted this to mean Liberalism is the future – but we cannot *forget* the law.

    Yeah, it’s fine to eat pig meat – but never forget that a pig left out in the sun will taste perfectly fine, and kill you all the same.

    I believe it was Wimminz who pointed out that Jews still understand that, when it comes to pigs and women, they’re leopards who don’t change their spots.

    Feel free to critique me more strongly.

  3. Mark Yuray says:

    Your articles are insightful and well-written. Do you identify as a Christian?

  4. Aurini says:

    Myself? Nah, I’m an Atheist. Just not a very good one.

  5. Glenfilthie says:

    LOL. You speak with the facility and rhetoric worthy of an ancient Roman senator, Aurini. I find your work entertaining but tough on the palate – you have to chew through it to see the point. That’s a big job for an old school farm kid like Yours truly – so be patient with my objections.

    Game is just fuggin wrong. Games are for kids or shysters and that’s it. Casual sex without commitment is wrong too. Your argument seems to smack of ‘going along to get along’ and I have serious moral and ethical qualms about that.

    Boys, I grew up in Mayberry. My parents were like Beaver Cleaver’s. Pop was like Fred McMurray. You younger punks probably don’t even know who those people are – but don’t feel bad. They are icons of an golden age long gone.

    The goal SHOULDN’T be casual sex, it should be finding a viable mate. The idea isn’t to dominate or take advantage of your wives, but to protect them, team with them and then play as a team to your respective strengths. Classical marriage is a damn good deal if you can get it. You will be happy and damn near impervious to the bumps and jolts life throws at all of us.

    It doesn’t do to say the world is fucked, so just do what feels good and split when the consequences come down. That is the way of the weak man. A strong man holds to his goals, his family and his morals regardless of what lesser men do. In my opinion, the man that beds his wife and keeps her happy in and out of the sack is far more noble than the cad that beds the sluts and cankles that are politely referred to as ‘feminist women’ today.

    Turning your nose up at a slut is the same as opting for water instead of sugar water, or eating healthy rather than gobbling junk. I advocate saving yourself for ‘Mrs. Right’ because she IS out there. Already most women and many feminists are beginning to realize that they have gone too far and are beginning to recant. We are winning, boys, the reality of the situation makes that inevitable. As the consequences of feminism hit good and hard – the quality of our women can only improve.

    The world may be going to hell, but the heroes and strong men will not go with it. I live by moral codes that worked like a hot damn up until the 60’s…and would advocate them for the young fellas today too.

  6. Ted says:

    Great article. You obviously have powerful reasoning and writing skills. It is a valid response to groups who resent and shame gaming tactics. If I may, I’d like to share my own viewpoint. I do agree with you on lack of morale of our female counterparts, yet I don’t identify with game for the sole purpose of sex. My take is time is both too limited and valuable to be wasted on this “less-than-a-dog” creature with its vast propensity for manipulation and deceit.

    Of course that may be because I was recently cheated on by a woman, and I still carry a lot of resentment towards all of them. Maybe after pain has passed I’d see a merit to the importance of game. That, however, is not the case for the time being, and I disagree with the premise that sex worths spending this much time and effort socializing with an individual of no moral code. An individual I deem unworthy.

    Be that as it may, I do believe in a live and let live ideology. “Some” have wisdom to offer, provided no snap judgement is made. I look forward to reading your future articles.

  7. Aurini says:

    I agree with you; at present, I’ve had more than enough of dealing with the soulless sluts of the world. As a friend of mine commented to me recently, “Even if I were single, I have better things to do with my time than deal with their negativity.” When a guy’s ready to let go of those types of women, that’s when he’s ready to meet a good woman.

    Guys used to be ready around the age of 21; and there were a lot more quality women out there. These days, that’s not so much of an option. It’s not that much of an over-simplification to say that young men have two choices: A)Live a life of failure, or B)Learn game, and learn sluts, until they’re ready to become a man.

    Nobody’s inducting men into adulthood, outside of the manosphere, and writing can only accomplish so much without real world examples, let alone women who are trained to behave like ladies.

    Runs On Magic covers this well in his post here: http://runsonmagic.com/2014/02/life-unlived/

    Let’s put it this way, contrast to violence: a man who utterly owns the violent arena, who is fully confident in his ability to destroy his opponents, often feels no need to fight. If the fight isn’t worth it, he doesn’t feel shame or cowardice for backing away. That’s the goal of masculinity. But to get there, we need to be in a few scraps, first.

  8. Moishe says:

    You give us Jews way too much credit… The community where I live is abound with myriads of yentas… In that respect, they are no different than the shiksas (I just committed a crime according to Canadian law by using that word).

    Some of the US founding fathers took it upon themselves to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, methinks it’s time for you perhaps to learn a new language – wink wink nudge nudge (And the Old Testament includes not just the Pentateuch but also the Books Of Prophets and all the Apocrypha).

    Have you read the book of Esther? Just asking because we read it in the synagogue next month, and I think you would find it very interesting…

    Pork? Incredibly economical animal protein, perhaps the most economical. Don’t eat it myself, as I’m observant, but Hassidic teachings say it is not good for the Gentile soul either.

    Rock on Aurini.

  9. Aurini says:

    There are some convincing arguments that we’re descended from pigs; that we’re pig/chimpanzee hybrids. Certainly puts that whole thing in perspective – and it adds a layer of depth to Amnesia: Machine for Pigs.

  10. will says:

    “let alone women who are trained to behave like ladies”

    Times a changing:

  11. benny says:

    You say ‘Game would not be so popular if there weren’t massive numbers of women trying to sleep around’
    Which begs the question if there are massive amounts of women trying to sleep around, why the hell do you need game?
    It must be like shooting fish in a barrel,
    this must be the easiest time in history for men to get casual sex,
    so why are these men whining like women?

  12. Aurini says:

    Show me one man in the manosphere who’s whining about not being able to get laid.

  13. benny says:

    Whilst sex is the cheapest it has ever been throughout history, these men are still whining about the cost, using the excuse that these cheap women don’t deserve paying anyway.

  14. Aurini says:

    Again, example please?

    The closest thing I’ve seen to “whining” is the sober acknowledgement that finding a feminine, pleasant woman to be around is like finding a needle in a hay stack.

  15. benny says:

    sounds suspiciously like the girls that whine that finding a nice boy is like finding a needle in a haystack, as an excuse to keep dating those bad boys,
    keep fucking those sluts if you like, but please stop whining about it

  16. Aurini says:

    Benny, married men are complaining about it. Dalrock, for instance. Speaking of which, you don’t actually know what I’m doing relationship-wise.

    I bring both of these up to point out that you’re making an ad hominem against me. You haven’t provided any examples of the behaviour which you claim exists, and now you’re twisting it to suggest that I (or some other group of people – you haven’t been specific) are being moral hypocrites… except, you’re not *actually* asserting that, you’re only implying it, because making such an assertion would require a logical structure to *explain* the fact that we’re moral hypocrites – and then I’d have something to sink my teeth into.

    All I have right now are vague aspersions – and I’m not even sure who they’re being directed at.

  17. benny says:

    How can Dalrock be whining that he can’t find a girl to marry when he has?
    If a man isn’t married or celibate then logically he must be getting sex from either sluts or prostitutes.
    I don’t know which you are,
    but if the manosphere is serious about restoring marriage,
    then it needs to propose serious solutions
    or it just comes across as insincere whining.

  18. Exfernal says:

    I’m curious what is your professional opinion about the novelette “The Mask” written by S. Lem. Assuming that you’ll find free time and willingness to read it, of course.

  19. Thanks to my father who told me concerning this website, this website is really amazing.

  1. February 25, 2014

    […] Women’s capacity for moral agency. […]