GIRLS CHASE MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION
• Unlimited access to GirlsChase.com
agency [ey-juhn-see]
noun, plural a·gen·cies.
the ability to make your own choices and act independently, free from the influence or pressure of others.
The subject of women's agency is one both feminist circles and the manosphere have debated almost since each movement's inceptions. Although these two movements approach things from different perspectives, and arrive at their conclusions via opposite routes, they both reach the same conclusion: that no, women do not have agency.
From the feminist side of things, here's a "veteran advocate, activist and educator" who pushes for "genuine sexual liberation and self-acceptance for women" (bio) who declares most women have no sexual agency. And here's the World Bank, a global financial institute and progressive spearhead organization (which has "promote gender equality" as one of its signature 'development goals'; it's also focused on, for instance, fighting manmade global warming), claiming that "girls and boys, and later women and men, have unequal capacity to exercise agency."
The consensus among feminists and other progressives is that women are deficient in agency. The reason they're deficient, feminists and progressives tell us, is because oppressive patriarchal systems and brutish, insensitive men sideline women from decision making -- even within their own lives.
The manosphere side arrives at the same conclusion as progressives and feminists -- that women are lacking in agency -- yet deduce this from a different set of clues. In the manosphere, examples of depraved, seemingly immoral behavior by women and the reliance of much of the modern female lifestyle on contraceptives, as well as the dearth of women who aspire to "higher values" as opposed to men, are pointed to when making the case that "[a] woman’s lack of agency is something neither to celebrate, nor despise. It is something to accept."
Contents
The consensus among red pill and manosphere thinkers, just like feminists and progressives, is that women are deficient in agency. The reason they're deficient, red pill and manosphere thinkers tell us, is because they are simply biologically incapable of freeing their decision-making from emotions, from accepting blame for mistakes they've made, or from hewing to any ideals higher than the most base, primitive necessary to run a life in a society.
It would seem that, while feminist, progressive, red pill, and manosphere thinkers might argue about the source, they all agree on the outcome: women lack agency.
So it might appear the debate is settled. Now we're just arguing about who's to blame: Mother Nature, or outdated, patriarchal men.
But I have another perspective on female agency.
Because I've seen all the things these thinkers talk about. I've also seen a lot of other things. And I've spent a lot of time up close with women, digging deep into their thinking and behavior beyond what they are even typically consciously aware of themselves doing, and beyond what most outside analysts believe they are doing too.
It's led me to the conclusion that women do not lack agency at all. Not in the feminist way, and not in the manosphere way, at least.
Instead, women beguile -- something they're exceptionally good at -- as part of how they act with agency in the world.
A woman uses the cloak of lack of agency as part of her real agency. Feminists further the agenda because it furthers theirs; male progressives and manosphere men alike push this female agenda (coming at it from different start points) because they buy it and believe the performance.
But a performance is what it is.
Comments
Why nobody has perfect agency
Why nobody has perfect agency is summed up well in this video.
So as long as you require something of value from another person, you have to offer something of value. I'd think that a similar calculation is made when deciding to conform vs not conform, the benefits and costs of doing so which may also tie into the Red-Black game mentioned by Varoon. Funny thing about life is that in these matters supply and demand tends to balance things out which is why if women really did sufficiently lack agency, then less parents would be willing to raise daughters and thus men would have less potential women to choose from or women trade agency for another valuable aspect in life. China's one-child policy shows this dynamic.
Loved this one
Loved this one, Chase. Great article!
Cheers,
Franco
Sexy
Very sexy article. Thanks Chase!
Question/Idea
Hey Chase, great article!
Can you make an in-depth article on how to pick-up girls as an Uber driver?
Thanks
Pursue
Good read
Thanks for the article Chase. This was fascinating to read and must have took a long time for you to prepare. You have so much patience and focus it's unbelievable. So do you really believe that any women is capable of cheating then and if they do cheat they know what they are doing and want to do it? Some are obviously more prone than others it all depends on factors you have discussed in your website whether they go out a lot to party, how they were raised, partners etc. But can even women who have only had 1 or 2 partners and they're still in their mid or late twenties and were highly devoted to her man have a chance of cheating if they meet the right guy and if they push the right buttons?
Finding an article
What a deep thought out article Chase!
It is interesting how mainstream arguments become a loop of self-reinforcement. Support comes from within the group; the wrong proving the wrong as right.
Btw, I remember reading one of your articles. You and some people were on a road trip? And you and this guy was working on the girl during the trip. She isn't that pretty, but out of the group, she is the best looking. And you gave yourself a challenge to get her before the trip ends.
The message was usually if we don't have a girl at "Hi", it usually wouldn't go anywhere. <-- This message is also mentioned in another article about approaching. I spent an hour looking through the site but can't find it.
Does it ring any bells? The two articles?
Thanks Chase,
Lawliet
Relating article
sorry, one more thing
You talked about relating in an article somewhere or comment?
How a girl shared with you her bf/ex went to the military and cheated on her.
You didn't know how to relate at that time and said "that's horrible". However, now (when you wrote the article), you would have said "yeah. trust them as far as you can throw them"
Ring any bells?
Thanks,
Lawliet
I have a boyfriend
A woman can say "No" without mentioning him, as I know by experience. In fact, the women I have asked out on dates fall into three categories: those who went on the date, those who I never dated, and those who told me they had a boyfriend and later went on a date with me. I would say that when a women brings up a boyfriend in order to say no, she is either testing you or reminding herself why she should say no.
Racial barriers, age & traditional/conservative parents
Hi Chase,
Recently I've read some of your relationship articles including 'When you should breakup up with a woman' along with Hector's 'The only reason you should get into a relationship' among a few others. I've got a question regarding age gap, interracial dating and dealing with conservative parents.
I'm in a great relationship with a woman in her early 20's and I'm in my late 20's with about a 7 year age gap between us. We're both in University and are going great with excitement, passion, growth in the relationship more than year in. The caveat is her parents are traditional/controlling and seem to prefer their daughter dating someone closer to her age and white (I'm brown). So they nag her, are controlling and this leads to sadness for her, when she feels she doesn't have their support, which I feel when I empathise with her. Though they can be supportive at times and allow certain freedoms, the core issue is still there.
What's your recommendations for guys in situations like this, we've worked hard, developed a lot, got a great girl but then there's barriers like this (Race and age are not an issue for her but just her parents - brought up in a country with not many other races). Should we break up what is a great relationship? or is there steps we can take to manage the issue? I feel like there's still a lot of space for growth and a continuing awesome relationship but would like some real practical advice for guys in situations like this and if it's actually feasible going forward.
They haven't actually met me so who I actually am is imaginary in their heads. Would it be smart to meet them (or would this lead to conflict?), what are some steps I could take to make the situation with how they see me better? Or in general for anyone with age gap or racial barrier problems with parents what's the wisest thing to do?
I'm sure there are many guys who are older or brown/asian/black etc in similar situations so thought it'd be an interesting article!
Thanks Chase,
Jason H
mild disagreement
It's been a while since you post this, so I apologise for commenting probably outside the response window.
Although it's been a wonderful read, this is the only Chase Amante article that has not convinced me, in 2+ years of reading GC. Probably my fault because well, let's be honest, I can't hope to compete with the Author intellectually, nor in other sphere, lol.
The point for me is that I really don't see how one can get around the conundrum of women's actions being mandated by feminine nature. Their sexuality, emotions, lack of an intrinsic definite morality, higher tendency to herd thinking and group conformity, and even the very same tendency to lie about everything (agency included) are well...all innate and we know that they dictate their everyday conduct.
Chase himself, to an extent, agrees to the redpill and feminist argument plus with the standard interpretation of the ultimate seducer paradox as stated in this very piece, and also all articles on GC are based on the assumption that, at the very least, women have a somewhat weaker agency in that they are way less sociologically deviant and independent than men and that they normally respond in the same way to the same stimulus (same input, same output all the time, e.g. sexy man's courtship >> sex; if it does not happen it's your fault not to have fed her the appropriate stimulus).
Still, I'll admit that I emotionally want to believe women have agency, although I know that - even if redpills and feminists quit spreading their doctrines that at the end, as you point out, serve only to advance female goals - women will never be held responsible for anything.
So, all in all, my opinion is that both the feminist (as far as its descriptive part is concerned, the normative simply sends chills down my spine as soon as I think of its consequences, already in place by the way) and the manospherian explanation hold much water in my book, but I think each of them is grossly exaggerated and hyperbolic.
Thus I think women have some degree of agency autonomy and independence, albeit to a lesser extent than men, so that they too should be responsible for their actions.
Let's remember that, in case we were able to actually prove that women have agency, we'd have to come to terms with the fact that they so often (if not always and by default) lie, blame/shame, cheat and cuckold and everything else consciously, freely and on purpose with the sole end goal of advancing their sexual reproductive strategy, whatever the cost in pain for other fellow humans. Can't see which option's the worse...
Beatrice
I don't think the Beatrice example is taken far enough, I say let's take it to its logical conclusion. Instead of just an ambiguous idea of the "ultimate seducer", let's use a more comprehensive "ultimate mate" Example instead.
In this example everything remains the same, except the man of interest is not only an "ultimate seducer", not only is his game/process perfect, not only are the environment conditions PERFECT to get an attached and supposedly "happy and in love" woman to cheat, also add on top of that hypothetical that man being some form of "ultimate mate". The easiest example being her celebrity crush (many women are now open and unashamed in proclaiming they'd leave their boyfriends or husbands, or at least cheat on them, for their ultimate celebrity crush)
So a man who is famous, rich, has the highest pre-selection of practically any other man on the planet, likely the APEX of her exact physical type in terms of height, face, body, cock, etc, charismatic and charming, and the fact that she has probably fantasized and touched herself to this person thinking she'd never get a shot, ALL IN TANDEM with the perfect conditions and perfect game/ultimate seducer skill above. Will the lovely respectable Beatrice say no? Of course not. She's going to get her fuck on, completely overwhelmed by quite literally the perfect cosmically crafted sexual opportunity, without any remorse and unconcerned with the feelings of her partner (only maybe concerned after with the negative affects on her reputation, or on losing the benefits she extracts from that relationship)
If even this sort of archetypal faithful woman "beatrice" can be seduced and give in to her emotions and lust/desire after another man, there really is no reason to engage in exclusive monogamous relationships with women under the pretense of "love" or meaning, unless you are a truly desperate or delusional man.
We can all willfully delude ourselves about this for our own mental well being (similar to our willful delusion of freewill serving us evolutionarily), but it is still just that, delusion.
This irreconcilable issue was the final nail in the coffin of my old naive, hopeful, romantic idealist self. It is the reason I have realized there is no value or no reason to pursue long term relationships on the basis of "love" or meaning, regardless of how hard the woman you're dating/her friends and yours/families/media/culture and even your own biology TRY to convince you otherwise. Those relationships serve women's interests, not yours. In fact they often serve her interests at your expense.
Human relationships are practical and transactional. How you pursue dating and relationships, and how you structure those relationships (ideally either serial monogamy with expectations of fizzling out soon, playboy/harems, or LTR with MANY contingencies and leaving it open on the man's side or simply just being scummy and getting pussy on the side) should reflect that fact. Sexual satisfaction, validation/ego boosting, reproduction, satisfaction from a sense of conquering, etc are the only reasonable objectives to aim for when pursuing women.
Leave a Comment