And there you have it men

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

[RoyDalParticipant]

She is good! It is rare to hear truth this stark from a woman. Obviously, she has put a lot of thought into this (which provides an exception to her thesis). The YouTube belowbar says she is a philosopher; she’s one of the rare ones.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Anonymous 5]

This Sue Hindmarsh is another gem, along with Esther Vilar and Erin Pizzey.

I’ve had a few examples of women exposing women’s nature to me in my life so it’s not as rare as it seems. It always bowls you over whenever it happens though, and it’s almost always from the very best of women.

The bit about men being able to live happily alone, as opposed to women living in misery by themselves, must be the hardest piece of reality for women.
No matter what they say, they’re always miserable alone,,,and as Sue explains,,never satisfied and always wanting more in a relationship.

[SpacemonkeyParticipant 1481]

Its an interesting point of view but I find her argument to be self defeating.

On the one hand she is saying that women do not have consciousness in the same way as men do, that they are essentially shallow creatures only interested in acquiring “more”. Fair enough.

But this is a woman saying these things, which proves that at least she has consciousness sufficient to recognise these facts about the difference between men and women, thus defeating her argument that women do not have consciousness.

I think she would be better saying that MOST women do not have consciousness and are shallow creatures whose only goal in life is to gain “more”. But then again I think the same could be said for most blue pill men.

As a MIGTOW I neither need nor want a chorus of wimin backing me up, especially when their arguments are as second rate as this womans’.

“Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light.”

[FrankyParticipant 2338]

RoyDal wrote:

She is good! It is rare to hear truth this stark from a woman. Obviously, she has put a lot of thought into this

it’s a matter of time before they got the whole act worked out perfectly,
soon you’ll see a lot more “good” women, and “true NAWALTS” too.

[FrankyParticipant 2338]

Spacemonkey wrote:

But this is a woman saying these things, which proves that at least she has consciousness sufficient to recognise these facts about the difference between men and women

How are you sure she’s not just parroting someone?
Your argument doesn’t make sense.

[UntamedParticipant]

Isn’t it interesting and so fitting how weemins, after having hit The Wall at a 1000mph, all of a sudden tend to acquire this consciousness that leads to formulating concepts above and beyond what the feminists claim to be their best arguments.
This Sue Hindmarsh is no different than the dozen of weemins I had serious, no-bulls~~~ talks with. All without exception have conceded the fact that Men surpass weemins – leave in the dirt, really – in abilities to adapt, grasp abstract concepts and apply them in the physical world and they were all Post Wall hoes, maybe a little more awake or less deluded. The Wall’s whiplash effect.
As the Hive starts to understand that Masculinity will not be taken down so easily it changes tactics and we have NAWALTS and Unicorns coming out the woodworks.
If there ever was an all-encompassing character trait in Woman it is the ability to manipulate. In that, they surpass Men beyond understanding.

Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Spacemonkey wrote:

On the one hand she is saying that women do not have consciousness in the same way as men do, that they are essentially shallow creatures only interested in acquiring “more”. Fair enough.

But this is a woman saying these things, which proves that at least she has consciousness sufficient to recognise these facts about the difference between men and women, thus defeating her argument that women do not have consciousness.

I get the impression she’s saying women could be more than shallow, greedy consumers, but they just don’t. Likely because they have men to do all the heavy lifting and hard thinking for them.

Also it’s one thing to recognize the strength of a bear, but it’s quite another to know what it’s like to actually be a bear. This woman is recognizing strength that she, herself, does not experienced.

[Anonymous 11]

Untamed wrote:

As the Hive starts to understand that Masculinity will not be taken down so easily it changes tactics and we have NAWALTS and Unicorns coming out the woodworks.

Beware the false Unicorn. Women know all about the Unicorns. One day when she thinks you have been fully corralled she sheds her skin.

[kizellParticipant 368]

To be honest I’m not too impressed

I’ve come across many women who have said similar things. Low and beyond I discovered that they did not really believe those words themselves.

Men must never forget that the easiest way for a woman to manipulate a man is to tell him what he wants to hear.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

Spacemonkey wrote:

Its an interesting point of view but I find her argument to be self defeating.

On the one hand she is saying that women do not have consciousness in the same way as men do, that they are essentially shallow creatures only interested in acquiring “more”. Fair enough.

But this is a woman saying these things, which proves that at least she has consciousness sufficient to recognise these facts about the difference between men and women, thus defeating her argument that women do not have consciousness.

I think she would be better saying that MOST women do not have consciousness and are shallow creatures whose only goal in life is to gain “more”. But then again I think the same could be said for most blue pill men.

As a MIGTOW I neither need nor want a chorus of wimin backing me up, especially when their arguments are as second rate as this womans’.

I agree with you. It couldn’t be because “I’m a philosophy student, I understand al the mysteries of human nature”, right? Philosophy students are invited to clear me on this topic.

I believe when she says ‘women have no inner conscience’, she means ‘women don’t have the power to see the bigger picture’, ‘think out of the box’. I disagree, there are some (if not all) women who have been inventors and discoverers and adventurers…. if these women didn’t really have consciousness, they couldn’t have achieved their feats. I’ll stop now that I’m starting to sound like a mangina, forgive me. But I’m trying to say she doesn’t make much sense with her talk.

Women of today do possess the consciousness, but choose to shut it out because, well, they really don’t need it. They already get what they want being unconscious, don’t they? They don’t need to invent or discover; they don’t need to do all the physical hard work like men do, thanks to their stereotypical gender role; this part of her speech makes sense all right.

NAWALT theories aren’t gonna sway us lot back to the plantation. Whether they intended or not, they have pushed us away; and we are not going back.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Author]

Posts