/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>623736

Oh goodie .. another /mgtow/ thread. I was worried that we were running low on them.

Female saints (as well as male saints) are simply an example that human beings can overcome their base nature through efforts to be holy and by the grace of God. Learning about female psychology in order to more effectively interact with females is fine as long as you don't become bitter and resentful about it or abuse that knowledge to fornicate with them.

>>623741

Oh no, bitterness is not in my plan, and fornication was never in the question. It does bother me that human females have that issue of wanting strong men to take them though. Is this a corruption (result of the Fall) of a more innocent instinct?

>implying holiness isn't inherently alpha and omega

More seriously, just recognise how frail and awful they are, but have pity on them, just as you would (and should) anyone else. Take them each as they are, and remember that they are wounded in their own particular way from the Fall. All that stuff you listed is exactly that, and it's why they go haywire without an authority to guide them.

Women aren't naturally like that (in fact most women the world over aren't like that). The problem is your perspective. You probably haven't travelled and you're basing your opinion on the women around you. Most modern Western white women have been made into horrible monsters through liberalism, feminism, atheism, socialism, and pop culture. (Many men of the same background have likewise been ruined.) It's an unnatural state of affairs that has led to the looming destruction of their nations and the extinction of their peoples. Women from traditional cultures who were raised right…the difference is night and day. Flee the West. Western Christian women tend to be much better, but they're an increasingly rare breed, and some are still tainted by ideological poison to some degree amyway. Seek a better marriage market. If I lived in Sweden I'd pack my bags tonight and book a flight for tomorrow morning to literally any other country on earth.

>>623744

I know enough of what women in Guatemala are like, and I know what evangelical women are like (vapidity, "Jesus is my boyfriend" mentality). I know "what they say about Catholic girls" (and that's a question for another thread: how to prevent the stereotype from becoming reality ["stereotypes exist for a reason" seems very true, so what's the reason, and how do you take care of it?]) and that women who are raised right simply have factors preventing them from going all out (just like why anarchy is such a bad idea).

>>623736

>how do you reconcile the redpilled view of female psychology

Easy, I recognize that muh redpill is a bullshit ideology.

>How do you be holy as well as an alpha?

The whole alpha/beta dichotomy is bullshit. Neverthless, holiness and alphaness are not exclusive.

>What is the proper way to think of women?

As human.

>the Blessed Virgin would be exempt from such issues

She wasn't.

>what about female saints?

What about 'em?

Y'all need Jesus.

>>623746

I know nothing about Guatemala, but you should count yourself lucky that you aren't a Gringo. North America and Europe are the ground zero of social decay. I guarantee you that the women I've known are worse than the women you've known.

Women typically aren't as intelligent as smart men (women tend toward mediocre intellects, while men tend toward either stupidity or intelligence) and they're much more impressionable and conformist. Their brains are wired this way genetically. If they conform to a good culture, they will be a bulwark against the devil. If they conform to an evil culture, they will be a millstone around their people's neck. They're like overgrown children.

They're only built to live in a house under the authority of a strong man, either their father or their husband or their God. In any other situation they go crazy and destroy themselves and everyone around them. That's just how women are built. It takes a good community to bring out the goodness in a woman, and a bad community will bring out pure evil. That goes for men as well, but since men are more fully individuals, a man can much more easily stay righteous amid a wicked culture.

Evangelical and Catholic girls are a blessing. I've watched some fall and I've watched some stay true. These girls have the potential to become either good wives or whores, and it's your job as a man to find and marry one and make her the former, if you're called by God to the married life. They'll have a hard time being good on their own.

>>623742

>It does bother me that human females have that issue of wanting strong men to take them though. Is this a corruption (result of the Fall) of a more innocent instinct?

Adam sinned by following Eve's recommendation. That being said, God is the strongest being of all and he is the Template of manliness. To be like Christ is to be a true man. By following Christ you can not fail at all. You are called to be like Christ. Be like Christ.

>>623781

Adam's sin was in part effeminacy. He followed his wife's lead instead of acting like a man.

>>623832

You're giving women way too much credit if you think they thought up the doctrines of liberalism, feminism, atheism, or socialism. Men originated all those ideas. Women just fall for them.

Men and women, both flawed, both with awful issues; different ones, yet only when they cooperate in God they can be more than the sums of their mistakes and limits.

I kind of agree with the MGTOWs arguments, the problem is; their solutions to the issue all pretty much are "let's ignore them, let's isolate ourselves out of pride and a sense of superiority". Not all of the people in that "movement" are like that, I know, but most of them are. But God told us we must go into the world, lambs among wolves, and must win the hearts of men and women with cunning humbleness and witty charity. We must be good, and being good Christians has nothing to do with the wordly "nice guys" and "nice women" so often portrayed by Romantic literature and corrupted mass media.

If we want to change and save our society (which I love, like a son loves his alcoholic sickly mother, and yet I know I cannot love as much as I love God), we must start from ourselves; too many men became "weak" to please the world around them, whilst other became "hard and cold" to detach themselves from it but without wanting the burden of responsibility. We have the submissive "herbivore males" on one side, too meek and weak to act, and the "chad males" on the other side, who use their skills and potentials for egotistic gains. We must discover once again the true nature of manhood and womanhood, the "guardian of life" position fo the masculine and the "genitrix " role of the feminine all under the protection and will of God.

>>623744

>Many men of the same background have likewise been ruined.

This.

Was talking to some friends.

It's hilarious seeing them liking how easy is it to get sex, while at other times bitching that any girl they'd hook up with has, quote(excuse the language) "fucked and refucked".

At other times, you hear other degenerates go "man, we need good, wife-material chicks. We are at an age where we need stability"(remember "muh cock carouselle"? Literally same thing)

Recent news of possible realistic sex bots, both male and female, being met with "oh, yes, the opposite gender will now come crawling back to us, because they will realise they've lost their only important asset they've enslaved us with", while also trying to ban their implementation by the other side, because it is "mysoginistic/mysandric".

It's hilarious seeing 'i'm a strong independent womyn who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"/"i'm a detached redpilled man who doesn't need these treasonous whores" types be so hypocritical and vulnerable.

Fuck MGTOW, fuck modern feminism.

They are both toxic ideologies that deserve to rot into oblivion.

>>623871

MGTOW is a reactionary movement. It teaches that it is against a man's interest to be in a serious relationship with a contemporary woman, especially in the environment we currently live in. Saying F this and F that is not an argument and sure as hell will not change anyone's opinion.

>>623877

I would suggest you do the same. Women don't look for maturity or responsibility, women look for confidence and authority.

>>623871

I agree with all of this.

>>623874

Nice simplification. Are you MGTOW or have sympathies?

>>623884

Confidence and authority hold distinct meanings. The attractive part of maturity is often the confidence and authority it holds. But maturity doesn't always mean confidence or authority.

>>623896

>Don't judge every women by the vast majority of women between 16-30yo you've met

FTFY nice meme btw

>>623894

Be celibate, nigga. What is wrong with you? Men are more into women than women are into men it seems..

>>623853

Feminism is logically female-originated. Jezebel was a woman who sexed her way into power, remember?

>>623858

I have never been an MGTOW. Before I discovered anything of the alt-right, I discovered the PUA side of the manosphere. Although I didn't like the fornication aspect of it, the anti-feminism drew me in. I needed an answer to the question of feminism, since it seemed so wrong.

>>623951

Anti-feminism is okay as long as you on't turn into one of those who screech against all women: there's plenty of bad Christians out there, and even more lukewarm ones…but we should help them in the right Christian way, with kindness and without compromises in how "harsh" we must look, not just bash them because of a "holier-than-thou" desire (which, at times, is well hidden behind good intentions).

>>623903

I already am, but bloody hell m8 we'll die out if everybody stays this way.

>>623953

I actually function normally socially. I do screech against "Western whores" in my private time, but I can socialize with women. I understand that you need to get out of "anti-social autist" before you can progress to "has a chance with women" (my goal being marriage and children).

>>623955

And that's why I don't want to stay that way. By the way, I don't want to make this thread into a horror show, but does anyone here got tips on how to apply redpill to getting a woman for marriage? All these contemptible PUAs only want to talk about pre-marital sex and one night hookups, no long term game.

>>623961

>Redpilling women

Almost impossible, highly depended on the man influencing her, her intellect and how far she's already gone.

>>623984

I don't want to redpill a woman. I just want to marry one and raise Catholic children.

>>623955

It doesn't matter.

>>623984

I wouldn't even say it's almost impossible as people are people. People can have surprisingly different experiences and unpredictable temperaments. There will be people who defy your expectations because that's life. Thing is, most people's characters and behavioral (and thought) patterns can be easily gauged through simple observances like how they talk and their interests. Even if it's something a little more hard to determine like "vibe". While I don't know why most people are generic as it is, that's just how God made them. It's one of the reasons why the "everyone is special" thing is bullshit though.

I can't see how men and women have traits that particularly out-strengthen one another. For men being generally more rational than the woman, she's more socially fluid and intuitive, and he's more socially stupid and oblivious, and so on and on.

>>623951

Male writers thought up feminism in the 17th and 18th century as an extension of the "Enlightenment." Women started parroting these ideas en masse, mostly in the 19th century. Female feminists have only ever been ideologues, repeating ideas that they've heard from others. No female feminist has ever been a genuine thinker. Women are incapable of originating new ways of thinking, at least the type of women who fall for things like feminism. Even women with high IQs, and there are far fewer than men with high IQs, don't have the individuality required to be original thinkers. Men thought up feminism.

>>624407

>Men thought up feminism

What sort of evil, woman hating man would come up with feminism? Some kind of mass rapist misogynist?

>>624460

It's funny because calling someone MGTOW has become the go-to insult for anyone attacking feminism.

>>624465

>attacking toxic feminism

>attacking women

Learn the difference.

>>624484

>Even though most don't take up the label of feminist, all women have some feminist tendencies to them.

Could that, perhaps, be due to their fallen nature. A fallen nature that all of us, male and female share? Could it be that the new Adam and the new Eve could have something to do with rectifying this?

>>623736

It can't be reconciled. The Church is simply way too idealistic, like with many other things it teaches such as no premarital sex and no contraception and no mastrubation. The teaching regarding women and those things simply has no connection with reality. Basically, the teaching are just letters on a paper.

The fact of the matter is that as a man, you're only worth to women proportionally how much you benefit them. If you don't benefit them as much as another man, you'll be dumped. Men are literally walking wallets.

No one cares about your virtues or personality or intelligence. In fact, women like intelligence only because it correlates with having more money (research confirmed this). So, a woman doesn't love you, she just loves the things about you that benefit her.

>>625447

>The fact of the matter is that as a man, you're only worth to women proportionally how much you benefit them. If you don't benefit them as much as another man, you'll be dumped. Men are literally walking wallets.

>No one cares about your virtues or personality or intelligence.

As opposed to men, that love unconditionally, with looks and good standing that mean nothing to them.

Just think of all the fat and ugly chicks with great personality that have such meaningful relationships.

>>623739

>/mgtow/

No, not really. MGTOW operates on the same presuppositions as feminism, namely, a false equality between the sexes to justify identical treatment. The OP is claiming that women have distinct traits. The only commonality with MGTOW is that he is being cynical towards women and not acknowledging their strengths, but only their weaknesses.

>>625470

Looks have the same role with both sexes. Men aren't hypergamous. Men don't care if their woman earns less than them or has a lower level of education. Men don't care whether their woman has a car or takes them out to dinner or to trips abroad. They care about loyalty, fidelity and not being slutty. With women, you can be literal trash if you have money and a manipulative personality.

This is why throughout history 80% of women reproduced, compared to 40% of men. It's just an interesting piece of data, most men that lived on earth never reproduced. Interesting stuff.

>>625473

>Looks have the same role with both sexes.

Ah, so we are just as shallow and stupid, except having a boytoy is more looked down upon for the guy, as having a sugardaddy.

>Men aren't hypergamous.

Then old empoverished nobility marrying wealthy industrialist daughters wouldnt have been a thing in the 19th century.

Churchill is the result of such union.

>Men don't care if their woman earns less than them or has a lower level of education.

Yeah, some of them just poke their eyes out over it. Know a case, was the leading cause of them divorcing.

>Men don't care whether their woman has a car or takes them out to dinner or to trips abroad.

Women earning more is a major psychological issue for many men. Again, know a case in my family's history(and no, he was the one who seems to have cheated)

>This is why throughout history 80% of women reproduced, compared to 40% of men. It's just an interesting piece of data, most men that lived on earth never reproduced.

Except that's just a frequently repeated meme, without source.

Well, sometimes people say it comes from this(http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657) but the text says no such thing.

I bet you also believe that ancient, flawed study that got debunked a long time ago, that says 10% of babies in maternities are not fathered by their legal dad, right?

On the other hand, for some real statistics, here is the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf

>By age 40, 85% of women had had a birth, and 76% of men had fathered a child.

So yeah, not parity, but a far cry from /r9k/'s and the Red Pill's memes.

>>625537

>Ah, so we are just as shallow and stupid

Actually, women consider the majority of men to be attractive below average. Look it up.

>Then old empoverished nobility marrying wealthy industrialist daughters wouldnt have been a thing in the 19th century.

Why are you giving some obscure examples? That wasn't widespread, it applied only to a fraction of society.

>Yeah, some of them just poke their eyes out over it.

Not funny. It's an actual problem, I've seen many articles where women whine how there's a lack of college educated men and they're not willing to step down to take a man with a HS degree.

>and no, he was the one who seems to have cheated

Great anecdotal evidence though. Women initiate 90% of divorces. Women, the vast majority of them, won't even enter a marriage with a man who earns less.

>By age 40, 85% of women had had a birth, and 76% of men had fathered a child.

That's by modern standards. I'm talking about the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

>Researchers in Germany found that throughout human history, mothers have regularly outnumbered fathers, meaning that more women have passed on their DNA than men.

>But the researchers point to cultural biases, whereby relatively few men got to mate with multiple women and women tended to move home to live with their partners.

>As modern humans moved into Europe more than 45,000 years ago, the number of mothers may have outnumbered fathers by around 100 to 30, according to Stoneking. His study appears in the journal, Investigative Genetics.

>>625541

>Actually, women consider the majority of men to be attractive below average. Look it up.

That's because they are. Conversely, the men who call average-looking girls beautiful (everywhere on internet with high amount of socially awkward people, hmm I wonder why) are silly and have low standards. Didn't you notice more normalfag men only find certain types of high maintenance women to be attractive?

>Great anecdotal evidence though. Women initiate 90% of divorces. Women, the vast majority of them, won't even enter a marriage with a man who earns less.

And that's good!

>>625541

>Actually, women consider the majority of men to be attractive below average. Look it up.

You know, you could bother linking that OKCupid study, if you wanna have a serious discussion.

Here is the full quote.

>As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.

And guys:

>When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.

We are picky horndogs, and women are shallow and unpleased.

That seems much more true-to-life.

>Why are you giving some obscure examples? That wasn't widespread, it applied only to a fraction of society.

Because you said men are this and that.

Here is a counter-example.

And it makes no sense.

Either rich gals are marrying alien millionaires from Uranus, whining about how they are lonely, or something is gotta give, statistically.

>It's an actual problem, I've seen many articles where women whine how there's a lack of college educated men and they're not willing to step down to take a man with a HS degree.

>Women, the vast majority of them, won't even enter a marriage with a man who earns less.

And where are all these snobby spinsters?

>Women initiate 90% of divorces.

2/3rds, actually.

And break-ups are half-half.

http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

>>625550

Men are TOO UGLY and BROKE to be picky. They are TOO UGLY AND BROKE to be NON ICKY for UGLOS so they should be CELIBATE

>>625541

>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

Oh yes, i forgot, and the comments section is picking the thing apart, since it doesn't make a lot of sense in many areas(Y chromosome variance, etc.).

>>624454

Without understanding this, nothing makes sense. By this I mean the fact that jews are behind every single nation-wrecking and anti-Christ movement.

>>623853

>(((Men))) originated all those ideas. Women just fall for them.

FTFY

>>623747

/thread

OP study some theology. "Redpill" alpha shit is snake oil, its not written by anyone you want to be like, in fact its not even written by anyone that gets laid, its a dead lead. Being self assured, self realized is the only way to be happy, and if you ask me the only way to become those things is to follow your calling to Christ. Besides, girls like confidence because its assuring to them, everyone feels safer and more comfy around people that are secure. Redpill is anti-security.

>>625615

What about Jews who are not working against us?

There have been and still are Jewish people who find a way to our Lord; I agree that many of them are working against us, but should we also pray for our enemies, their conversion, while being cunning and shrewd?

The only time I get some dissonance is when I hear good priests talk about how women are more nurturing to weakness when it's been my observance that women are the first to want to suffocate weakness and revel in its death. Every time women have a larger say in a society it ends up being more eugenic like in Sparta.

>>625550

>Here is the full quote

Oh so women are somehow better because they sometimes lower their expectations slightly? Give me a break.

>guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.

Interesting. Does that mean average girls get no messages? Because that's silly. Show data about how many messages an average girl gets compared to an average man.

>And where are all these snobby spinsters?

Do a quick google search

https://www.google.hr/search?q=college+educated+women+dating&gws_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=xoC6WrXaOIr5wALWprbIDQ

>2/3rds, actually.

Can you check the percentage where both the man and the woman are college educated?

>the comments section is picking the thing apart, since it doesn't make a lot of sense in many areas

https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

>Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again.

It makes perfect sense and confirms my assertion men are walking wallets to women. Women formed harems around men with resources. Religion kinda changed that, but as religion is dying, so is monogamy.

>>625689

>>625550

Oh and here's the rest of the quote I forgot to paste it

>"Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says.

Which makes sense again.