"How much ability and responsibility do women have in regulating their own behavior?"

This is one of the most interesting questions in the Redpill universe. However you answer this question defines whether you hold women accountable when they fuck up or rush to their defense and look for extenuating circumstances as to why she was "forced" or "coerced" to do something.

Female hypoagency is the cultural tendency to deny that women have any agency in either their actions or the motivations behind performing those actions.

On the surface, many feminists say that this is what Redpillers like to do: Keep women controlled; Deny they should make their own decisions; Say they can't control themselves.

But this is also a feminist tactic, because the practical result of female hypoagency is that when a woman does something bad, she will be immune from blame by definition. After all, she can't be blamed if she wasn't the one in control (or further, is unable to control). Examples: hormonal issues (as if men lack any hormones in their body), personal safety issues, peer pressure, etc.

But it doesn't stop there. Acceptance of female hypoagency leads to male hyperagency:

In male hyperagency, men are held responsible for all the things women are not. It's a way to abdicate responsibility and create a victim mentality for women.

Examples: "Benevolent sexism". These are benefits that women gain based on their gender, yet by labeling it as "sexism", they somehow make it into a bad thing.

"Women not earning as much money as men". Despite the fact that more women go to college than men & there are more women voters than men, men still get the blame as to why the majority of high earners, CEOs, & political leaders are all men. Despite women having more opportunities than men to succeed, their lack of success is men's fault, not theirs.

While I stand behind what I wrote above, I came across this comment on a blog, and I think it raises deeper questions:

I suspect that the truth is that around a powerful, dominant masculine presence the part of a woman’s brain which is responsible for logic and reason simply shuts down. Pure biological instinct takes over, leaving the three main drives of a woman: 1) Sex with alpha males, 2) protection, and 3) provision. At this point she starts seeking to fulfill impulse #1, sex with an alpha male. No rational thought is involved. Just pure lust.

To women, the notion that a relationship might result is probably the most logical conclusion that they can reach as to their actions after the fact. The truth is that they don’t know, and don’t understand why they did what they did. So the Hamster kicks in, and draws out this solution. In other cases it resolves itself as “he took advantage of me.”

Personally, I am starting to wonder if a man with a dominant alpha frame is irresistible to women. That is, given the opportunity, she would have sex with him no matter the cost or consequences. Or what some have called “trading 5 minutes of alpha for a lifetime of beta.” Worst of all, the woman has no control over this. She cannot help herself, and really doesn’t have full agency in this kind of situation.

This is why I framed the title of this post as a question, because I want to see what /r/alreadyred thinks. What is the balance you strike on holding bitches accountable yet recognizing that parts of them are simply too inconsistent to trust?

I have found myself coming down on both sides in the past. So I want to organize the idea here.