There’ re women who there’s just the sole right thing decided previously in their solid belief.
It is never so as to say ism nor claim, their stance to live in society is so, or showing to anyone.

They have surely rigid law than just a manner, from the beginning of their existence as it is the absolute.
Then, their most despiseful ones are the ones who plan nothing.
The ones with only capriciousness anarchilly.

But I want to say to them.
For example, love affair, working, anything must be so according to schedule we’ve set, mustn’t they?

In other words, first we can think that something is so right, but gradually we are apt to switch our previous idea into how it is so strage, or it is so skeptical, uncredible or so in our emotional impression we are apt to have often, namly we are constantely chage ourselves along each contacting to something as our experience.
But they are never so.
They only have previously right thing as the law how to choose the life way.
Thus, they are always predicate any ones who at each circumstance switched their idea or stance so often are evil to them.

But that kind of thinking method must not only bear nothing, but also rather robs any bud of new creative something’s omen to be born, so surely, doesn’t it?!

What’s that right way to live?

Right woman, right man, namely what is that women’s intention to make their men worn as common sence or good sence of moral, morale, or ethics?
Where are they written?

What I can think that so is caused from the absolute fact that anything must never be done completely along the set schedule to us, then if their idea was set taking it account to own idea, I can see, but if their it was an idea previously in no condition, they think just right., and their acting way so obedient only to its stance, I can feel how they are dealing with that kind of idea, I cannot help but feeling so.

Previously destined value or common sense, what are they?
If they are always preparing every that kind of rules, but probably that must be so profitable only for them, I can see so, either.

Their own valuable man was the one who can adopt them all to oneself so skillfully, wasn’t it?
What they try to emphacise is so understandable at logically meaning.
But the man as a creature of the natural world, of which they have with no exception freedom never to be flamed to that kind of their ideal, that parts are the man’s happiness to live for them, they all have no idea about its point of view.
(to be continued)

(Jan. 21th. 2019)