As the title says this topic may be offensive to some as may the discussion. However it is important that we discuss reality. Not feeling’s and or opinions.
So, do women have “Agency”? Yes / No, and what is your reasoning. Please use empirical, or historical evidence if you have it.
To Clarify, let us define “Agency”.
~ Agency is the ability to enforce decisions against any on comer and the inerrant ability to defend oneself against opposition to the point of success. To be able to independently through ones own means without assistance (in this case of the opposite Gender) Defend ones position against opposition, whether physical, Mental, Socially, or otherwise.
My view on this is that No, women do not have Agency, never have and never will. Throughout history no female driven or ruled society has existed for more then 1 generation. Usually not even more then 5-25 years.
Even in Modern society, women only have the Illusion of independence, and rely on men to enforce such exclusively because they themselves can not in reality overtake men as a whole.
It comes down to Force application, or resistance. Women simply have no ability in reality to resist men, physically or otherwise. They through evolution are, incapable of putting forth the necessary force presence required. This is an Empirical Fact, an Evolutionary Fact, and a Historical Fact.
Women do not have true independence. They have the Illusion of such as allowed by men in first world countries. If all men one day stood up and went, no more. Without men on their side, women would have no real ability to resist such a decree.
My Evidence for this is many and varied however lets look at Iran or anywhere in the middle east for a recent historical example:
~ In the 1970’s and early 80s, These countries were considered first world modern and advanced. It was not uncommon to see women in mini skirts etc, attending college etc. Then the Khalifate and Islam swept the country, turning it into a 3rd world country. At this time and even today women outnumbered men by a full 70%. There were 7 women for every single male. Today int he middle east there are 9 women for every single male.
Yet this super minority of men, are able to over power, and oppress the resistance of the super majority of women.
It should be noted that no where in the entirety of human recorded history has the reverse ever occurred. This clearly shows, that women have no agency since they are unable to independently truly stand against the opposite sex and resist oppression on their own merit and standards, without the assistance of other “men” on their side.
That eliminates the vast majority of all humans. On second thought, it eliminates every person in history. Without their security guards, armies, etc., even the most powerful would not have been able to stop even small teams or single assassins.
In fact, if we read your essay, we’d have to conclude that gorillas have agency and no humans do, since no human could defeat a gorilla ‘without assistance.’ A very powerful gun would be needed.
You’ve defined agency, but it sounds more like individual, unassisted power.
Then there’s a problem with your facts: You claim that in 1970s Iran, women outnumbered men 7 to 1 (70% of the population), and today in the Middle East, there are 9 women for every 1 male (90% of the population). This is spectacularly, demonstrably false. According to United Nations and World Bank demographic databases, Iran’s population has always had a slight male majority. In 1975, Iran had roughly 17.3 million males and 16.4 million females. In 2026, Iran’s projected population is roughly 47.3 million males and 45.8 million females. That is a sex ratio of about 103 males for every 100 females. The 9-1 ratio holds nowhere.
In philosophy, agency is the capacity of an entity to act in an environment with intent, purpose, and volition, not who can win in a cagematch. One can think of person X or group Y as having less power and still think of them as human, but it seems to me the move towards saying women have no agency is dehumanizing them.
Do me a favour and just think about this for about, say, one nanosecond. Women make up 90% of the Middle Eastern population? Nine out of every ten people are female? You do know how reproduction works don’t you?
This is one of those threads where gender is bought in for categorically zero reason.
The agency of human beings in general stands to question. What on earth is the point of breaking this down into gender categories?
This is the same thing just in the opposite direction as feminism is.
“We just want equality”
The word equality implies “for everyone” dear. What it does not imply is making sub groups that fight for the betterment of ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY those who belong in your group.
Please stop assigning sex and gender to things which are completely devoid of them…
It would behoove people, to notice I said “The middle East has 9 women for every man.” Not simply “Iran”. I was using Iran as the political example, with the Khalifate etc. While I am sure the UN has its own statistics based on whatever methods it uses. Please remember that the Middle east, do not have actual population tracking. Like the US, Britain Etc. However this being said I probably could have clarified that more.
If you have ever been to the Middle East, then you will in fact Notice the divide is extreme. There are far more Women then Men. The example I gave is based on (7/10 9/10) Observational data. Which is the only way to be accurate with countries which do not in fact, track their population and birth rates.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the same holds true. The numbers other posters have posted are reported and assumed rates. And also just as accurate as my reported numbers in that sense. The example is the example.
I also find it interesting that people focused on my definition rather then the philisophical argument.
The definition I gave was specifically, The Definition to be used. As stated, for this debate. The debate is not about the definition. It is about the contention, that women do not have true independence and never will, because evolutionarily, they can not beat men as a whole and must rely on the generosity and kindness of men to allow them freedom as it were.
And yet… only one or 2 people actually rebutted the main topic or posted about it. Again Examples are examples for the purpose of the debate. If you do not like the Iran example, there are many many others you can find.
The point is that in order for someone to have equality, they must be equal. There is no way to make women the equal of men in reality. And therefore Equality between men and women is simply not achievable or possible in any sense other then a societal illusion. And even then as I said men could simply stand up and go… Nah, were done with that. And there is nothing women could do about it and absolutely no recourse they can take.
Because of this, Equality is itself an illusion. The same is true for many other topics as well. Such as the Genetic differences in races, which are facts, concerning intelligence, physical ability, mental illness rates (prone to), etc.
Saying someone with an IQ of 30 is Equal to someone with an IQ of 125 is a lie, and absolute delusion. And yet modern society would teach you that it’s actually true and have you believe it when reality is literally the oposite.
In reality, everything is a cage match. It’s survival. The only reason you think otherwise is because Modern technology removes these “strictures, and Structures, and issues”, which an individual would normally face.
Technology allows you to be weak. To be Uneducated, to not be able to critically think. (not you personally but you get what Im saying). it allows you to make mistakes daily that would have killed you not even 50 years ago. And because you have grown up in it, you take it for granted as the Norm, when if tomorrow, for whatever reason humans in your area lost power, cell service, and modern amenities for say 6 months, there is an exceedingly high probably you like most would be dead within a month maybe 3 if your lucky.
And again, then compared to gorillas and, for that matter sparrows and certainly dandelions, most men - using your definition of agency, now in the context of societal collapse - have very low agency or none.
And here we are in this situation. Sure, humans have adapted to the changes they have made.
There is a twist in this.
You can achieve equality, you just need to strip away the genders from the problem.
Which is ironically how the law is supposed to be. The law is supposed to be blind and mete out justice regardless of identity.
Correct in base reality, incorrect if you create a system that stands above it.
How can it stand above it?
Formulate a criteria that is not based on physical quirks or identity, instead takes pure manifestation of will, such as actions.
Law judges actions, and actions have no inherent connection to your gender.
You are human before your sex.
You are being judged upon your human components and not on the basis of your lesser manifestation such as body and identity.
Of course, in the practice this does not work because even the justice system is fucked beyond all reason and corrupted to it’s core.
Its full with stereotyping and i.e. women constantly and perpetually get lesser sentences for the exact same crimes as men do. The standards are fucked because the essence of the system is not being upheld.
TL;DR:
Its perfectly possible to create a system, standard and value set that equalizes people.
Its a different question that nobody wants to, because its much more personally beneficial to play victim and oppressed, appealing for special treatment due to noblesse oblige and similar concepts.
Humanity has become very comfortable with the idea of abusing kindness.
People who play victim for their own benefit in my honest opinion should be simply given life sentences until they figure the fuck out the type of parasite they have been on both society and morality itself.
So given the possibility, what is your opinion for why all attempts to do so have failed and why the probability for success in such is so low?
Also, what would this system look like including the enforcement mechanism which would ensure those who are in essence the force appliers do not abuse such? Could you use women successfully as Force appliers in this system given males anatomy and ease of resistance to such? What would this look like?
Its the same answer for both.
Because we are human.
You see this is the same issue that comes up when you discuss i.e. form of governance and social structures.
All of them work. Almost flawlessly too if you give them a bit of a leeway.
Yes. From shamanism to having an alpha like with an animal pack, through feudalism, socialism, theocracies, and even capitalism.
All of it works.
Except none of them do.
Whats the reason why all of our systems fail?
In a nutshell its always human nature. Always. Without fail.
People learn to game the system, leaders start to seek their own benefit rather than their people’s, everyone adapts and starts to seek to have higher benefit even if its to the detriment of everyone else.
If you could remove that factor from its entirety, then every system would work.
And because of this. None will ever work.
At least not permanently or on the long run. They will all fail, because we adapt, and new generations will not give a shit about it anyway since they never experienced the negative reasons that gave birth to the current system in the first place, so they will see only the downsides of it till they finally destroy it.
There are systems that do not have that weakness, its simply that leaders and government’s do not use them because of that exact lack of leeway in the system. They are so balanced and mechanical, that it eliminates corruption entirely. They are not used because there is no way to gain power in them except through merit.
The issues with all of those systems is not human nature, it is in the fact that all of them allow someone with no Merit or Ability for the position to obtain it, while also allowing that individual or group of individuals to lie to be elected or chosen, without consequence.
When you remove a persons ability to obtain power without Merit, and you ensure that a person who is elected must perform their duties accordingly or else be prosecuted, and then actually do such, and when someone runs on a topic, then fails or clearly shows they never intended to do such, remove them immediately and prosecute them.
You fix most of the issues. The other part of the issue is the voter themselves, who for the most part votes on something they have no actual clue about or understanding of in reality. If you ensure your Voter is actually competent and understands what they are voting on, this fixes the other side of that issue.
Correct, but as you stated, for obvious reasons people would be fighting this tooth and nail.
I very much agree with you on this.
If it were up to me, voting would be strictly allowed based on how informed the voter is.
I wouldnt even limit it to service, gender or anything else, but present day, the amount of literally unthinking trash in the voting system has basically killed democracy as a whole.
Im more than willing to bet that over 50% of the people are voting on an emotional basis that completely disregards rationality. And it shows. It is now a 100% obvious that this system is going to die one way or another. Either by imploding into civil war or by imploding into some kind of authoritarian dictatorship, but democracy is basically dead at this point.
And for a very good reason.
The foresight and understanding of those people was so far beyond their time that it is incomprehensible to a point its almost magic.
They still serve as a foundation for our laws and systems 2000+ years later, and you have comedy critiques like the assemblywomen to explain patterns we either disregard or still struggle with today.
Still, it was vulnerable to the Socrates virus. The potential to abstract power away from the councils into some Ideal State was latent from the beginning.
In that trial and execution as recorded, Socrates weaponized the democratic structure against the very elite who alone were really qualified to embody it.
“The people,” “the working class,” “justice,” “the Arian race,” whatever you want to insert, are just placeholders for Socrates’ abstraction (as in abstraction from).
I am not sure free will fully exists, to be specific at its potential, when emotions and passion form the majority, if not all, of decision making.
Can free will exist through the motivation of feelings and passion? Yes.
Can free will exist when it is only through the motivation of feelings and passion? No.
Women are more emotion and passion driven then men…if not primarily emotion and passion driven.
Case in point, a personal example, I had a female philosophy professor for an introductory course to philosophy my freshman year. She spent a whole lecture talking about how philosophy made her feel…and whirled around while she did it (if memory is correct). Emotion has its place in philosophy…but is it philosophy? Absolutely not.
