>>13004976>Every FUCKEN time a man makes a decision the cunt have to object with some stupid suggestion. Women don't understand the way that men engage with each other because women are inherently valuable and men are inherently valueless. Thus, when men are talking about something, it's focused on value because men aim to be more valuable than they are (that's why they aim for $$$ and fast cars as status symbols). When men talk about shit of consequential value (like France starving), they'll get more and more serious. Women will make quippy remarks like "let them eat cake". So, what you're seeing is a man making a commitment to increasing value in some way or another, and all the time no matter what, a woman gets uppity with him for no reason. That's because she isn't able to distinguish the quality of value at play, and as she sees it, the guy just made a decision on the whims of his own character, so she's doing the same thinking there's a game to be played that she was invited to and that she's on equal footing to play.
>but with WOMEN its always some dumb shit that doesn’t make FUCKING SENSE.Correct, because as I said before the women were born valued and therefore never had to struggle to really increase their value. The most that they perceive of value is how readily people are willing to jump up and help them, and so the women grade their grasp of that value by what they did before that value arriving. If that was starving themselves to fit into a size 4 dress, or making a cute Instagram post that showcased their boobies, they'll think that value is achieved by the pain the individual suffers to provoke others into giving it. Their valueless additions are ways of "improving" the man's plans by making things harder on him (thus increasing his soon to be realized value), or they're trying to take an equal share of the man's success by contributing what they perceive to be equal investment.
