Really, therefore a woman doesn't merely lie, she has no idea what she's talking about. Why would she? Why would a woman need to care about the physical world at all? That's what fathers and husbands and sons are for.
Her logorrhea can only be taken as her intent to perform the social status moves that are associated with the alleged topic she's allegedly speaking about. Everything a woman ever says: "I like you." "I don't like you." "I'm better than you." "You're better than me." "I need help." "I want you to go away." That's it. Women could get away with knowing six words if infant males could rely on men to teach them to talk.
You might be fooled because, since she does know words, she can get fairly sophisticated when she's saying, "I need help." She can precisely specify an enormous varieties of resources she wishes to commandeer or arrogate. However, she could also just point. "Help *that*" Six words and a gesture.
Likewise, since she literally has nothing better to do, she memorizes thousands and thousands of varieties and shades and subtleties of "I'm better than you." She then (vainly) tries to match them to the present situation, making it seem like she notices all these fine differences in social situations, similar to the way she can tell to the nanosecond when an apple turns the right shade of ripe. But different, because women are socially inept, because they are nonverbal. ("How are any of these fruit different?" "They're all completely different!" She's right, you're basically colourblind even if you have all three receptors. You see motion instead.)
Assuming she isn't being congenitally awkward. Nobody is willing to punish a woman for being insulting, especially not up-front in a [useful feedback] sort of way, therefore she never learns not to be rude. You have to kinda infer what she meant to say from what she did, in fact, say. Was the disrespect intentional or was she having a woman moment?
Exception: if you give women etiquette recipes to learn by rote, like you have to do with autistics, she can learn to be polite. She doesn't understand what politeness is, because she never needs to understand, but she can understand obedience and conformity. Indeed women love to behave as if they're in a play, with written lines they merely need to memorize and regurgitate. If that sounds deathly boring to you, you probably have an outie.
This is why single mothers fail so catastrophically. They have to
pretend to be a man and care about, like, the fact you can't spend money
you haven't made. By the time they're adults (""adults"") their brains
are far too ossified to learn any such thing. They speak Reality like a
broken foreign pidgin.
Basically if civilization wanted to be compassionate it would re-wire parties as plays. The women would get to choose their role, but once chosen they would just read the lines. They could do that "collaborative" thing where they come to consensus about which woman gets which role. There would be a professional party re-writer, and when the women got bored of the current plays they would memorize new roles and do different LARPs at the next party.
A woman's class would reveal itself by how many plays or roles she could keep memorized at once, and thus show up in how various, diverse, or sophisticated her parties were.
Don't forget there would be roles like "marriage candidate" with scripted flirting. Women would adore it, and marriages would still occur. Men would still be able to evaluate the woman behind the role; she would not be able to hide her true self. (Why would she? Who would punish her for being a bad actor?)
P.S. Having to openly, formally choose roles - because the other women need to know which roles are already taken - would heavily restrict women trying to whore themselves, since essentially no women would agree to openly take the slut role. Professional party scripters who made slut roles would find very few takers for the parties they organized.
The only problem would be the women constantly trying to whore themselves to the party re-writer. Like, there's nothing stopping you from doing this right now and if you can write decent parties you would get all the bitches.
Likewise, women would love if raising babies were a scripted play. You do all these specific things in this specific order and if you didn't flub any of your lines you can say you raised the baby "right" or "properly." Problem: the environment changes, so the play has to be re-written for every specific woman and every specific baby... Problem: women never really appreciate this so they're constantly trying to work out the lines to the baby-raising play. "There's for sure a play I'm suppose to be reciting, but I must have missed which line I say now." Worse: they're not logical so they don't do a good job. "I can work it out from the previous line!" She can't. Children have to be resilient because mothers are inherently incompetent.
P.P.S. This is probably why women want to talk about nebulous feelings so much. They're fascinated by these words they don't really understand, and are trying to relate them to something she does know and understand: infantile emotional impulses. It seems profound since you assume she can't possibly be as confused and lost as she sounds. The fact it's real difficult to understand what emotion she's trying to convey, because she's too dumb to use the right word, makes it seem like it must be difficult because it's complex. She makes everything seem vastly more complicated than it really is because she genuinely doesn't know any better. Every little irrelevant emotional divot must mean a new word or a new grammatical relation, because she can't see how it's similar to any previous one. Then she uses the wrong one and you have to figure out how it's related to what's actually going on. Basically, it isn't. It's just random noise.
Greetings, Alrenous! I'm somewhat lost on this point. Didn't you just describe a normie, regardless of his sex? And aren't we all partially normie-like? Don't we all take part in a nonsensical play, depending on the context? Aren't the contradictions of our souls (your term) an expression of these plays?
To be fair, I am an autistic male, but I could describe a few separate subjects I take interest in, which can hardly be combined - such as when I put forward my idea about the survival of the West, yet then get frustrated at its death-wish and wish for its demise. Or as a hateful incel that would ideally strive for love (preferably by an intelligent person).
Under feminine fascism, normie men strive desperately to act like women. If they're skilled they can succeed well enough that's it's necessary to look closely to spot the difference.
When someone tries to involve me in a nonsensical play I stop talking to them. It's degenerate and I have better things to do.
Post a Comment