/lit/ - Literature

I am wondering if you could rephrase your question into better English?

>OP is a woman
>writes like shit
red flag is officially up for this thread

>>11228401
Not first language.

Well lets review though OP.

What do women usually write about?

Either they write fantasy books that are convoluted extensions of their own sexual fantasies, like Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey.

Or they are thoroughly indoctrinated from an Ivy League university and write about feminism and race.

How many men do you think are interested in those two subjects?

>>11228431
What are most men interested in? Unironic question.

>>11228385
I really have nothing against women. I would not mind reading a book by a woman. That being said, I think they make up a far smaller proportion of great authors than do men. I am not entirely sure why. Women tend to be no less creative, and they tend to understand emotion better if not the same, so I would expect among literature it would be roughly the same, but that is not what I see. That being said, I care more for the writing than the author, so I do not go out of my way to read women, and I do not actively seeking out women authors.

>>11228431
I'm not OP but I can tell you VanderMeer's Annihilation is SHIT. The author is male but his sci-fi adventure uses alien invasion as a metaphor for adultery. It's absolute garbage. His wife is uncredited co-author I'm sure. But hey normies bought it and it's a film now so good for him I guess.

>>11228385
women aren't humans

Woman are bad at art and running a business.
I will only accept a white or east asian doctor. If desperate i will accept a poo in the loo.
If you walk onto a plane and the pilot is black, walk off.

>>11228441
>What are most men interested in?

No idea, but I'm pretty sure it's not female sexual fantasies or feminism and race.

>>11228490
But i have to go to Indianapolis! Really? Walk off? And what if the bus driver is black too?

>>11228441
Football and nascar

>>11228504
>bus

Public transportation is for niggers and the homeless

>>11228385
Remember that around 99% - conservative estimate - of the people here who "considers a work by a female a red flag by default" have never read a work by a male in real life either.

>>11228531
Greyhound is a private company, dingus, not a publicly held city bus.

>>11228431
Most of my favorite authors are female journalists of the first half of the 20th century. They don't write about either of those things.

The modern female is littrrly incapable of not talking about feminism. In every art form. Music, writing, movies, comedy etc.
Men have no interest in that.

Men want books about what if the nazis won ww2 or like about a desperate loner going through a mid life crisis in the 60's

>>11228555
>plebs want books about what if the nazis won ww2 or like about a desperate loner going through a mid life crisis in the 60's
ftfy

>>11228555
trips of Ares confirm

>>11228540
There are exceptions to every rule m8. Doesn't mean i'm not correct in putting my finger on a general trend.

>>11228409
Rephrase it into a non-shit shape.

>>11228593
um nah bro

>>11228385
Preface: I think Hannah Arendt and Clarice Lispector are both great writers. So I don't avoid works written by women but I do often approach them with more skepticism, especially if they're written by women who are still alive.

I think a lot of female artists are held back by not being able to transcend their sex. Nietzsche and Simone Beauvoir both write on this. In a nutshell, if women want greatness, they shouldn't be merely reacting to their circumstances, but acting.

I am especially skeptical of living female writers because so many of them live such an intellectually stunted lifestyle, which I don't think they're aware of, and I think this is ultimately a very bad thing for women. They'll always have a romantic interest a few swipes away. They get lots of attention and positive reinforcement. They'll never know isolation in the same way a man will due to their strong social connections. Isolation often gives a man room to think and analyze in-depth. Too many have their lives defined by drinking, casual sex, Netflix, chasing after good vibes, and materialistic hedonism without any higher ideals. Men seek meaning and none of those things carry any great meaning.

I firmly believe a great woman is better than a great man, though great women are much more rare.

>>11228683
>Isolation often gives a man room to think and analyze in-depth.

Which is incidentally what kills men earlier than women.

>>11228693
Suffering is a harsh but useful instructor.

>>11228385
It's a red flag if her work centers on "what it means to be a woman". Nothing against Anscombe, Weil, or Wrinch. de Beauvoir can suck a fat cock.

>>11228683
You should read Linda Nochlin's "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" if you want to explore that topic.

just leaving this here

>>11228385
simple statistics. I will eventually read Woolf and Eliot. But where are the female Musils, Manns, Pynchons, Joyces, Prousts, Stendhal, Flaubert, etc, etc?

>>11228752
Half of those books are tumblr-tier. The Origin of of the Family, Private Property and the State also contains a really stupid critique of monogamy.

>>11228731
Are the reasons more or less same as OP's given ones?

>>11228505
Fuck yeah, nigger.

>>11228752
Oy vey

Men have a super power that allows them to hyper focus on things. Men pretty much have the ability to turn on and off autism. This is why men are good a specializing in things like art or computer programming.

A man can lock himself in a room for 6 months surrounded by trash and piss bottles and learn how to make electronic music.

Women are emotional and social creatures. Its why they are better at teaching or being nurses. Or jobs that have social interaction in general.

A theory i have come up with to why men are better at art is because men are forced to suppress their emotions in order to appear masculine. So how else will the emotions come out? A great painting. A song. a book.
This type of thing also drives men to go insane and commit acts of violence though. So its a double edge sword

If a woman fucks up they can just cry like a little bitch and attach themselves to some beta orbiter.

If a man fucks up he is in a desert and he has to use his wits to leave or face death

>>11228385
Most women don’t really like male authors all that much either. They hate DFW, Philip Roth, Hemmingway, Kerouac, Henry Miller, DH Lawrence...
etc. “Muh misogyny.”
I find most female authors pretty hostile to masculinity.
The honeymoon has been over for a while. We should just get divorced and leave each other alone.

>>11228784
>I find most female authors pretty hostile to masculinity.

Openly being hostile to that which actually turns you on is like sexual psychology 101.

>>11228767
>unironically justifying monogamy in 2000 + 18

>>11228801
I'm not justifying anything. I just think materialist critiques of it is stupid.

If people only got married because of money or status, barely anyone would get married.

>>11228782
>Men pretty much have the ability to turn on and off autism.
Nope. Not men, artists. If that was the case, all men would have been able to create art.

>>11228809
>If people only got married because of money or status, barely anyone would get married.
But that was the case. If, in Athens, there were two protected foreigners and eight - eleven slaves for every citizen, that's at most one tenth of the absolute population with the potential to be legally married. Monogamy proliferated with private property, as the merchant sector of society expanded.

>>11228385
sure: women do not have strong abstract thinking skills and when they do they tend to be oriented towards the mundane or the low complexity issues which one does not need intense abstraction to resolve; women are one plastic surgery procedure and tit job away from losing all integrity; women are all mad that they didn't get fucked into disembodied states every second of the day when they were young; women envy penises because you can rape people with penises and people who have them are strong and control violence; women don't have to fight in wars, they have not collective racial memory of killing others; women are never adepts or mystics so their inner world tends to be dim, gloomy, shallow; women's prose is truly midwit, it never ascends to levels that even pseuds like Nabokov and Proust could manage; women are basically less likely to be geniuses and genius is practically the only way to produce good literature; women do not have a strong individualist inclination, in fact Ayn Rand, an ugly, unimaginative, banal, perpetually earthbound, flightless and weasel worded pseud is the only one ive seen have a "deep" thought to give about the sovereignty of the individual soul; women are afraid of making aggressive critiques of society and their own type; women are perpetually biologically bound to defend themselves and what they do, no woman would ever attack sex and marriage and feminism, there are a number of men who find organic life to be disgusting, its almost inevitable that female transhumanists like animals or that they think female sexuality is beautiful or that a tradfag woman loves being mother, they're incapable of misanthropy, true world-hate or the desire to annihilate the world; women have no understanding of destiny; women are hypergamous; women are lazy; women are emotional to a point of atrophying philosophical and intuitive tendencies, they're not intuitive at all, they're cthonic roiling cauldrons of other people's affects; women cannot affect without using a mediating pathway, they need some type of conduit or channel they're not strong enough to emit force themselves, so they'll use sex and violence to communicate instead in their writing (despite not understanding how sex works at all), no woman has ever properly understood sex they psychologize it into an alien torture ritual for themselves or some form of affirmation of their independence, they don't see the sexual act as truly debased like Men do, and as mentioned above they are incapable of understanding the purpose or impulses beneath hyper violence (hence violence is always a psychotic detachment from one's role in society; women's whole violence pathos is based in psychosis).

That's it.

>>11228832
>But that was the case

So what has changed?

>>11228800
Maybe when you’re 12.

>>11228816
your confusing what i said with creativity. I said men are capable of hyper focused and helps them specialize in things like art or computer programming or something you could just teach yourself or have great passion for

>>11228851
Most women are 12 until they reach menopause.

>>11228863
This is not a good selling point for reading female authors

>>11228809
There is no point to make a personal contract public and add the state to the equation, if you don't care about money or status. You could try to argue these aren't the absolutely main reasons (though doubtful) but shit always plays a factor.

Besides, monogamy and marriage are different things either way. The former goes against the nature for most.

>>11228784
Most men don't like either of them either sans Papa, and he is liked by most females too.

>>11228385
This board is full of incels and mgtow cucks. What else do you expect?

>>11228875
>There is no point to make a personal contract public and add the state to the equation, if you don't care about money or status.

I agree with that, but people still do it anyway, which means romance clearly is the primary reason.

Do women and libtards want to know what a polygamous society is like?
You think masculinity is "toxic" now?
Wait till all the rich men marry all the women and there are roving bands of incels blowing themselves up and beheading people.

>>11228847
The character of the economy, the accessibility and preponderance of currency and currency systems, production technology, etc. Although with the political victory of the bourgeoisie monogamy has more or less become obsolete as a tool for property maintenance. In Engels' time monogamy was a way for economically powerful families to unite. The husband and wife both slept around because private property was so well legalized that one didn't need to care about consanguinity with offspring. The wealth could stay in the family regardless of whether the child were known to be a bastard or not. Now the family itself is obsolete as a mechanism, the legal framework has been adopted that allows corporations to simply merge. Private property is quite inseparable from the state.

>>11228902
How is romance related to it when there is no affect on it whether you marry or not?

>>11228913
>incels
>doing anything
Chill out, you're talking about people who can't be assed to take a shower.

>>11228939
>How is romance related to it when there is no affect on it whether you marry or not?

Of course romance determines if people marry or not? Men are literally expected to pop the question after a certain amount of time.

>>11228441
pusy

>>11228939
>Chill out, you're talking about people who can't be assed to take a shower.


You fucking idiot. A man with nothing to lose loves a bit of the old ultra violence

>>11228920
>Now the family itself is obsolete as a mechanism, the legal framework has been adopted that allows corporations to simply merge

And yet people still get married.

Are you implying people are haunted by 300 year old social structures?

>>11228944
So the whole meme IS forced by society, and without the societal pressure to "upgrade" the romance, marriage would make no sense from romance point of view?

>>11228952
Incels aren't men with nothing to lose but entitled children too lazy to bother. Their whole thing is about inaction, basically depression with scapegoats.

>>11228954
>Are you implying people are haunted by 300 year old social structures?
Marriage is older than that, which is why people are still haunted by it. But I think even a teenager could see how the bourgeoisie is moving past the ideas of marriage and having children.

>>11228954
>Are you implying people are haunted by 300 year old social structures?
Almost like we have thousand year old death cults with billion followers haunting society with their dogma, and evading taxes.

>>11229012
Seems like that article is implying that you need to stay single and without kids to acquire more property.

>>11228835
Or in short, women's literature are for other women, and men's for other men. Pretty sure women might have a similar length of complain about men literature. Each's works are compatible with their own like-minded ones.

>>11228555

I wish you were wrong, anon.

>>11229071
Right, because property's direct union with the state has done away with the necessity of familial legitimization, which is my point.

It’s mainly based on the character. A woman can’t write a believable man and vice versa. It’s something deep in you that you put on to paper that turns a character from being a name to a believable entity

>>11228782
As I've said in an earlier reply, men aren't 'better', they just cater to other men just like women works cater to other women. If they were better objectively, then women would have all male-author favorites, which is not the case. Most women reads more female authors than male.

>>11228875
>Most men don't like either of them either sans Papa, and he is liked by most females too.

Papa is liked by most females?
Wtf am I reading?

also men don't like DFW or Kerouac or Henry Miller?
You're fucking retarded. Shut the fuck up.

>>11229129

>A woman can’t write a believable man and vice versa.

Men have certainly written excellent female characters (CleopatraRosalindAnnaKareninaEmmaBovaryTheWifeOfBathIsabelArcher)

but what about the other way round? What's the best male characters written by women?

Heathcliff is stupendous but he's a force of nature really. Same with Rochester - very much a female wish-fulfillment figure.
Jane Austen was notably female-oriented. (Darcy is OK; Bingley's hardly there; Mr Knightly is a bit flat if you get round the side of him.)
George Eliot gave us a couple I guess.
Virginia W? Meh.

>>11229162
>What's the best male characters written by women?

Hilary Mantel's Cromwell is pretty good. He thinks like a man.
Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch had a pretty good male/male homoerotic friendship at its core (but also had some slip ups where the main character has some implausible thoughts)

>>11229162
lol @ thinking emma b and ak are excellently written female characters. tell that to a grrl and see what she thinks

>>11229162
The outsiders was pretty good, and it was written by a woman

>>11229127
Or you know, it's easier to gain more property if you don't have high expenses.

>>11228385
women are servants to men, they are weaker, physically and mentally, and there's nothing wrong with that. they are to breed children not to fight or be great writers/thinkers

>>11229162
Emperor Hadrian
I actually had to remind myself at one point ‘This isnt really his memoir. This is fiction by some dead French lesbian.’

>>11229195
Again, this state of affairs is only possible in a society that has "atomized" property ownership. In early civilization, children and spouses were a means to acquire more property.

>>11229199
Men are here to provide bread on the table and protect his family, not to be great thinkers/writers.

>>11228385
my favourite book is by a woman and i think this

>>11228385
I’m actually somewhat of a “misogynist” (inasmuch as I think men and women are definitely different, not just due to cultural conditioning, and women have certain traits and failings which men don’t have as much, and vice versa) but there are a lot of fantastic female authors and poets I like: George Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Flannery O’Connor, Emily Dickinson, Emily Bronte, Mary Shelley, and Sylvia Plath, for instance. Anyone who claims to not see any merit in any of these writers isn’t interested in literature but rather in being a troll and a /pol/-tard. A bit of misogyny in your worldview shouldn’t prevent you from being a well-rounded person who enjoys great works of literature whether they’re made by a woman or not.

I think women definitely are generally more emotional and passive (or even passive-aggressive) than men, and don’t as often have the same all-consuming drive men do to excel in a field of human endeavor just for the sake of excelling. It’s hard to imagine a female Joyce or female Beethoven, such passion for and devotion to one’s art seems a curiously masculine thing. Woolf was a fantastic stylist and writer, her stream-of-consciousness is just as adept as Joyce’s, in my opinion; yet she looked at Ulysses’s ambition and erudition and discounted it as pretentious. While this may sound misogynistic, I think it’s a good example of a GENERAL (not specific in every case) difference between the artistic male and female psyche. Where male artists are more likely to appreciate and understand such massive, all-consuming ambition, a woman will more likely go “psh how autistic”. Basically what this post said in a more to-the-point way >>11228782

>>11229207
Sure but this materialist reductionism doesn't explain why people still get married even though it's apparently counterproductive to themselves.

>>11228385
ever see the movie "the falling"? that movie is ASS. but women gobble that shit up. same with books

>>11229303
Which

>>11229314
Social trends always start in the ruling class and "trickle down." The disregard for marriage and children in general is a fairly recent development, the proles will continue to marry and reproduce for a while, I think. Anyone who wants a kid just adopts from a developing nation, in the same way they would buy an "authentic" tribal fetish will touring the safer areas of Africa.

>>11229309
A large number of PEOPLE writes Joyce as pretentious. Maybe she just falls in that group and has nothing to do with her being a woman?

>>11228460
It seems like centuries of preclusion from the academy and other significant institutions that would foster literacy would account for women's underrepresentation as "great authors."

Because the female writers are extremely narrow minded

The only write about their own emotions, and whatever social cause is trendy at the moment

What woman can write something of the magnitude of Absalom Absalom?
Or not even that, just a book with interesting prose that deals with anything other than the female writer cliches?

I'm open to suggestions, I just want to read a good book

>>11228385
I'm well read. After a while you see patterns. There are good women writers, but there are so few of them it's usually not worth the time anymore to read them. Pearl S Buck is amazing, Atwood has some good books, and aside from a few other one offs that's all I could think of

>>11228385
I'm generally horrified by the concept of women as "people."
I like masturbating to women in pictures or on video (though even then I feel disgusted by the idea these are actual people after I'm done).
Mainly I think it's really fucked up you could be this submissive, soft, high pitched walking pleasure hole that likes being overpowered and ejaculated into. It's the most degrading assault on dignity I can imagine, and it's somehow a real life thing that happened to around 50% of the world population.
I could maybe respect a woman who killed herself very early on before submitting to that insane biological and social role, but otherwise I mostly prefer not to think about them as actual subjects with thoughts and opinions to avoid creeping myself out.

>>11229383
Wuthering heights

>>11229340
frankenstein

Was thinking of reading this, any good?

>>11228683
>I firmly believe a great woman is better than a great man, though great women are much more rare.

nah, you can't really compare the 'greatness' of great people like this.

>>11228951
*poochie

>>11229383
realistically you've already made up your mind, but on the off-chance you're genuinely looking for recommendations start with George Eliot

>>11229162
Healthcliff is literally the only artistically inspired male written by a woman what the fuck are you taking?

>>11229309
>Mary Shelley, Plath, Woolf
>Good
No.

>>11229395
>>11228385
Most women fetishize about being "used" or being "attached" to power & wealth without having to do anything, they're naturally passive.
It's not a nice thing to think about but why do you think women fantasize about "free-use" porn, for some, their sexuality is all they have and they cling to it for power. (I'm talking about 21st majority, not traditional (mostly christian women with pure hearts)) Therefore, often most female art is just memoir-like and lacking any substance beyond her own passivity. Male writers usually talk about action or events without sexuality that do not require action. Emily Bronte is one of the only female writers who deserves to be forever remembered and even then she talks about romance (but with action).
I don't often attribute "work by a female writer" as a red flag, but I will not deny that I will expect it to be somewhat diluted by a life lacking true passion that otherwise exists in male writers who actually had to find purpose through action rather than have it given to them like most modern women.

>>11229509
anyone who thinks Woolf isn't good doesn't have an opinion worth considering

just get over the fact that women don't give you attention man

(yes, there are far more great male writers than female writers)

>>11228567

>>11228385
Women evolved not to deviate much from the average. If you're talking normie lit than there's absolutely no difference in quality between a male and female author. But I gaurantee you there aren't many women authors for books on hydrodynamic equations of the oceans + atmosphere.

>>11229524
why bring my personal life into this? I know what you are and what you're trying to say but it's a moot point. Woolf took one clear look at her prose one morning and tied cinder blocks to her feet.

>>11228385
Men create Culture as an escape from Nature. Women are Nature. Women have no creative, Cultural impulse. They are Being, while Men are Becoming. Women are Dionysian -- hysterical, chaotic, formless -- while Men are Apollonian -- form giving, orderly, and reasoning.

>>11229535
>Women evolved not to deviate much from the average.
^This. Women are selectors, not the product of selection.
Which isn't a big deal in everyday life, but given that we all have access to basically the entire body of all entertainment media ever composed available to us for free it you're of course going to want to pick those works which are extraordinary.

Weininger all up in this thread yo, high five me witcha (You)s is ya feel in me playahs

>>11228683
>They'll always have a romantic interest a few swipes away. They get lots of attention and positive reinforcement. They'll never know isolation in the same way a man will due to their strong social connections.

>this is what incels actually believe

>>11229586
It's objectively true though, bitter incels just don't get that women face a whole different set of problems that revolve around abuse, fitting in with other women, and peaking in their 20's. I'm happy that I was born a man no matter how sexually deprived I may be.

>>11229535
>women authors for books on hydrodynamic equations of the oceans + atmosphere.
There's plenty of women in this sort of more empirical stuff. It's only say, particle physics/string theory/pure math/logic that have almost zero women.

>>11229602
not related but as a stemfag I'm obliged to say that particle physics and string theory are memes for brainlets.

>>11229586
Do you think this isn't true? Go on Instagram, see the disparity between likes that men and women get. Even if an art ho posts some terrible poetry, plenty of men will line up to tell her great and wonderful.

Ever caught a glimpse of the screen on a woman's phone? Tons of notifications, constantly. Meanwhile, plenty of men will go days without so much as having their existence acknowledged by another human being, whereas nearly every woman almost always has social opportunities which fell into her lap.

>>11229643
Someone's pissy he isn't the belle of the ball. Only feminine men seek such approval in vapid activities.

>>11228801
>*collapses your civilization
nothing personal

>>11229609
I'm a math postdoc, it's not really a meme; if you add say, CMT you get the majority of mathematically-heavy stuff. Not saying it's harder or something but you definitely don't see many if any women in those, as opposed to other parts of the physical sciences.

>>11229012
You're suggesting the bourgeois are happy or even prosperous doing this, when it clearly isn't the case and they are acting against their own interests in frenzy of commercialism.

>>11229661
you are moving the goalposts friend

>>11229509
>>Mary Shelley, Plath, Woolf
>>Good
>No.

OK, fair enough, I was just listing a lot of woman writers I at least somewhat liked. If you claim to have read and not see any merit in ALL of them, I’d think you’re being insincere.

>>11229370
I was just using her as an example of my general outlook on the difference between the sexes, but good point.

>>11229643
That is true, but you're not thinking straight. Those men want to sleep with her because she's a woman. Women who want to sleep with men do because he's a man. The difference is obvious. Earnt victory is much sweeter and lasts considerably longer.

>>11229677
I'm not your friend. Wtf moving goalposts no im calling your sexuality into play. That is an ad hominem argument. The bar here gets lower every day

>>11229509
>>Mary Shelley, Plath, Woolf
>>Good
>No.

OK, fair enough, I was just listing a lot of woman writers I at least somewhat liked. I think you misread my use of the word “any”, or maybe I used it wrong. What I meant was: If you claim to have read and not see any merit in ALL of them, I’d think you’re being insincere.

>>11229370 #
I was just using her as an example of my general outlook on the difference between the sexes, but good point.

>>11229674
>You're suggesting the bourgeois are happy or even prosperous doing this
No, I'm not. I'm asserting that they are doing it, and that there are material factors influencing this behavior. I'm not making any claims about whether or not they would be happier or healthier if they married and had kids (or just had kids) at a higher rate.

>>11229376
Why is that? Any woman born today does not need to go to a nineteenth century institution, but one today. I don't understand the significance of historical prejudice here.

>>11229725
There was a suggestion of voluntariness, that they are moving past it, not that they're being moved.

>>11229509
>and even then she talks about romance

Romance is extensively dominant in men literature too what are talking about?

>>11228779
What did he mean by this

>>11229708
But it's not just about sex. It's about having interaction and the deepness of isolation that men can face. I think that was the original point made in >>11228683 with
>They'll never know isolation in the same way a man will

>>11229734
That they are doing it voluntarily does not mean that they will actually be happier, at most you could say they think they'll be happier, and even that is a guess. For most of them it's a material calculation divorced from general ideas of happiness. The major different between bourgeois folks and proles is that the latter experiences frustration and exhaustion daily, the former anhedonia and ennui.

>>11229769
They aren't doing it voluntarily is precisely my point, they are being manipulated.

>>11229395
The fact that people like you exist unnerved me. How could someone have such a lack of empathy for other sentient beings?

>>11229811
The vast majority of human actions are "manipulated" by society, so it's not an useful observation.

>>11229811
I don't think it's fair to call it "manipulation," I don't think there's an intentional force of dissimulation behind it, unless you want to ascribe agency to commodities themselves.

>>11229750
Romance with action, yes.

>>11228816
He's clearly talking about male creatives.
Most other men direct their autism towards sports and stocks, where it's admirable to "be in the know"

Make a list of the top ten books of all time.

Does your list have 5 or fewer female authors?

>>11229913
Sounds like making a list about black entrepreneurs in 18th century Murica.

>>11229840
What do you mean by 'action'?

>>11229913
1. Wuthering Heights by Emily bronte (female)
2. Bible by God (female)
3. Pride and prejudice by Jane Austen (female)
4. To the lighthouse by Virginia Woolf (female)
5. Leo Tolstoy by Anna Karenina (female)

>>11229723
You originally implied that women don't have an extraordinary amount of social and romantic opportunities when compared with men, and subsequently don't experience loneliness in the same way that men do. When another anon asked you to do something that would prove you wrong, you just replied that REAL men don't care about such things, which is irrelevant.

Also you're a faggot that probably wears flannel shirts and grows his beard out in an attempt to chase his onions riddled concept of masculinity.

>>11229948
The 5th one. Thanks for the laugh.

>>11229948
>Leo Tolstoy by Anna Karenina
Jej

>>11229110
no that’s not at all what i said you mincing slave
>>11229129
no women are bad writers, their works are fucking awful and shallow to their core
>>11229309
every single person you named is a hack pseud, please don’t use saint Elliot’s image ever again
>>11229822
thy’re not sentient, or rather they’re not sapient. mosquitos are sentient, we don’t have empathy for them. Women literally don’t have souls

Hiroshi Arakawa is good but she's only written fullmetal alchemist

>>11230001
Anon, I'm genuinely concerned for your mental health
Also,
>saint Elliot
fuckoing kek

>>11228385
Women show less talent in many artistic endeavors including film making and painting. It is only natural to assume they are worse than their male counter parts. I've also read some shit by female authors such as Margaret Atwood, Ayn Rand and Kate Chopin.

>>11229826
You like Nietzsche? Me too!

>>11229668
it's pointless wankery detached from any coherent theory. Chaos theory is much more beautiful and promising.

>>11229822
What? My problem is I have too much empathy, that's why I'm creeped out by the concept of half of the world population being degraded into living as women.

>>11230040
>doesn’t know about the canonizing of Elliot Rodgers
need to go back

>>11229395
it feels "right" to them though b/c genes. They probably think of being masculine the same way.

>>11229395
I actually agree with you, this shit has bothered me for a long time.
I can't even think about a woman submitting to me without feeling visceral disgust. I would very much like a strong woman but as far as I've seen from this point, they don't exist.

>>11230196
No, the idea that male / female is some equal and opposite relationship is a lie people tell themselves to avoid dealing with the asymmetry and extreme degradation of femininity that exists in reality.
There's this tendency to see everything as balanced opposites, but the world isn't really that just.

>>11230194
dude I know about it, I think it's hilarious

>>11230204
They are pretty rare indeed, usually artists or stemfags.

Then again, same applies for men. Most people are submissive towards authorities and stronk leader figures, and our culture and history gave this roles to men.

>>11230245
You mean nature gave those roles to men.

>>11230252
To a point too, but human society left most natural roles behind step by step. Attributes that were crucial, say physical strength are irrelevant in civilised society for example.

>>11230204
leather jackets are a 99% of the time, a meme, I'll say that much

>>11230266
How do you define civilized? If you’re using it just as an antonym for physical, that’s a tautology.

Physical strength continues to be important and is highly rewarded. Even moreso in our past, even just 100 years ago.

>>11228441
feminine penises and cute 2D girls (male)

>>11230204
>>11230245
I think both of you are missing the deeper point that it's not just a case of women tending to be submissive but rather a case of the female sex being a submissive state of being in itself.
In fact the concept of submissive behavior is *derived* from femininity, not the other way around with women happening to be submissive.
Male dogs mounting in a non-sexual way to assert dominance for example is an abstraction of the submission female dogs represent sexually in a way where it can be applied elsewhere to express by analogy that the dog being humped is lesser than the dog doing committing the act.
Same thing in human context when you call a man a "bitch" or a "pussy."
Or with the "prison bitch" concept where you coerce a man into a submissive role and treat him as though he were a woman.
That's what's so disturbing about it, it's an inherent and absolute condition, there's no way for a woman to not be degraded by her sex no matter how tough or liberated or smart she might try to establish herself as.
The feminist mistake is trying to avoid this issue by pretending it's just a social convention, when really the degradation and submission is far deeper than some cultural accident.

>>11228441
Boats, competition, the fruits of labour and life, camaraderie, war, cars, sports, the power in art, animals fighting, and women (partners or side-kicks).

>>11228683
Basically this. I disagree with the last part though. People are great for different reasons; it isn't exactly a binary or linear thing. I would say that women can be great in ways men can't be though.

>>11230318
Also:
Table-top RPGs, shota, pick up trucks, weight lifting, bacon

>>11228460
>Women tend to be no less creative
False.
Women are significantly more conscientious and conformist than men. They are also way less represented among individuals with really high IQs, a trait that has been shown to correlate with divergent thinking

>>11228835
Book recommendations?

>>11228835
This is beautiful

>>11229110
That's a cute strawman, hole

>>11230310
What, exactly, is inherently inferior about being “submissive”, which is merely a word. I get where you’re coming from, I do, but I also think you’re wrong. If i get on my knees and take a man in my mouth until he cums, well, why shouldn’t this be compared to milking a cow? The cow has the sustenance that I need so i jerk its udders to get to it. The cow serves me. The farmer feeds and cares for his cows and expends effort to milk them but the farmer is still in control.

>>11230211
you say that because you see degradation in the sexual sense as a negative, probably because you are insecure about your own status as a male. I'm almost 100% sure girls don't see it this way.

Are there any big booty hoes who wrote books?

>>11230360
>What, exactly, is inherently inferior about being “submissive”, which is merely a word.
Exactly, you're doing this:
>>11230310
>The feminist mistake is trying to avoid this issue by pretending it's just a social convention
There is a word, but the word isn't the entirety of reality. "Pointing finger isn't the moon."
That said if you want to make this a linguistics thing, "inferior" is baked right into the word "submissive." That's what the "sub-" part is for. Below. Less than. Much like inferior (infra-), also "below." The two words are really talking about the same thing when you get back to their roots, though "submissive" has more specific behavioral baggage attached to it and "inferior" is more generalized, as in you could call a machine program "inferior" for taking longer to do the same task but you probably wouldn't call it "submissive."

>>11229599
>bitter incels just don't get that women face a whole different set of problems that revolve around abuse, fitting in with other women, and peaking in their 20's
>implying there's not another way more insidious set of problems facing every man

>>11230360
Also note that you ironically chose the cow of all things to try to use as an analogy to make the male sex seem degrading.
Think about that.

>>11230360
>What, exactly, is inherently inferior about being “submissive”

Submissive literally means to be under someone else's control, you cuckold bitch

>>11230370
>don't see it this way
That's the point, everyone keeps trying to frame this topic as social convention, or a matter of subjective perception.
This is done to avoid the real issue which is biological and has nothing to do with opinions.
Women aren't in a degraded state because of society or people having arbitrary views of them as degraded. They're in a degraded state because they're small, weak, high pitched, submissive, dependent, vulnerable, etc. These traits are all physical and prior to any culturally relative traditions imposed on them.
It's like the "fat acceptance" movement, a fundamentally physical and biological reality is being shut out by attempts to distract with completely irrelevant focus on the issue of subjective opinion. The problem isn't that people are conceptualizing fat people negatively though, the problem is you're fat, prior to anyone saying or doing anything in reaction to your state of obesity.

>>11230292
>Physical strength continues to be important and is highly rewarded.
Look at the most powerful people in todays world, if they weren't old white men or fat orange ones, they are nerdy kids like Zuckerbot. Any semi athletic women or even a well developed teen could take on all of them in a physical fight.

>>11230310
Unlike dogs, humans primarily mate face to face, obviously you could interpret "being dicked" as submissive but why not look at it from the "taking the D" point of view? Poking a hole with a stick is hardly more dominant than being able to take a huge black rod inside of you and enjoying it. In a fight, being able to shrug away hits is the most dominant thing you can do after all.

>by pretending it's just a social convention
Well, the examples you gave afterwards 100% are. Obviously a patriarchal society would see feminizing as a negative. Without the context of society made crap, how would be manipulation of events to your advantage (often attributed to females) be less dominant? Just look how stronk men are in terror over the idea of getting cucked.

>>11230406
So a guy getting a handjob is submissive if the women started it?

>>11229643
Why do you want approval and attention from the dullards who spend all day looking at instagram thots?

Stop being so entitled. Most men and women aren't worth shit. Incels are like neurotic Pajeets, it goes from "show bobs and vageen" to "murderous cynicism but also show bovs and vageen"

>>11230429
>So a guy getting a handjob is submissive if the women started it?
No, it isn't.

And please stop being so dense. It all goes back to raw power: women are weaker, more fragile than man in basically all senses.

>>11230429
>being able to shrug away hits is dominant
No it isn't, taking action is dominant, throwing punches is dominant. Dominance is the ability to have power and assert control over others.

>>11230429
It's not old white men, it's Ashkenazim and crypto-Ashkenazim like Trump who married into their bloodline. The only thing white about them is the color of their skin, I cite several Israeli studies and their immigration policy that Ashkenazim are distinct from Europeans

>>11230462
The only sexual act with an equal power dynamic is gay frotting.

>>11230429
>Any semi athletic women or even a well developed teen could take on all of them in a physical fight.
That's completely ridiculous.
Professional female athletes have been repeatedly wrecked by young male high school teams, and the best performing women achieve records below what a significant portion of less than apex male athletes perform at.
And of course you had that time top female tennis players Serena and Venus Williams claimed they could beat any male players outside of the top 200 (already a huge disparity in male vs. female ranking there just in what they falsely claimed they could handle) and got demolished by Karsten Braasch who beat both of them back to back while smoking cigarettes in between changeovers.
Women to men are like chimps to humans, even a relatively small and weak man will be able to easily overpower the vast majority of women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb_WYGtZ7K4

>>11230414
Actually novel thought.

>>11230449
Well, let's stick to fucking. A man would usually have more raw power in the situation than a woman, but both are "submissive" towards the law, so he can't do risking doing anything she wouldn't want. And that's ignoring that mental power beats physical one in most situations, so she could still have total "control" over him. And that's ignoring that many weapons negate physical power.

>more fragile than man in basically all senses.
Citation needed.

>>11230471
>The only thing white about them is the color of their skin
That's the only white there is either way. Go deeper and you have fuckloads of different ethnicities that don't have much more in common. Either way, it was tongue in cheek, nigga. There are tons of Indians, Arabs and Chink billionaires now.

>>11230481
We're not talking about apex male athletes though, they are at the bottom of the power chain, despite their physical power. An overweight 70 year old man with fake tan is much more powerful in todays world.

>>11230481
>hat time top female tennis players Serena and Venus Williams claimed they could beat any male players outside of the top 200 (already a huge disparity in male vs. female ranking there just in what they falsely claimed they could handle) and got demolished by Karsten Braasch who beat both of them back to back while smoking cigarettes in between changeovers.

Fucking brutal

>>11230481
that video... fuck

>>11230505
An "overweight 70 year old man" would still be able to overpower most women.
Like most people you're greatly underestimated how much testosterone matters for physical strength.
I'll refer you back to the chimp analogy.
A tiny little chimp can beat the shit out of you even if you're a full grown man with a good deal of weight and height advantage over it. It has nothing to do with how relatively weak or strong that chimp is compared to the class of chimps in general, the relationship between chimps and humans in terms of strength is just asymmetrical to begin with.

Literally nothing wrong with being female

>>11228835
Not a more accurate explanation could be written on the subject. I like the way you think, please write a book. not being cross, genuinely loved your analysis

>>11230535
lol, I remember that thread.

>>11230531
>An "overweight 70 year old man" would still be able to overpower most women.
Sure, but an athletic one could easy take on him, in a physical fight, which is not how power is distributed these days, making it all irrelevant. In our world, his bimbo daughter has much more power than 50% of men ever will despite being barely able to lift a handbag.

>A tiny little chimp can beat the shit out of you even if you're a full grown man with a good deal of weight and height advantage over it.
We're soooo moving off topic from the off topic talk.

>>11230505
Elites nerdy/weak/ectomorphic frame is a genetic adaptation that came about after agriculture due to resource abundance available to them since they are at the top of the pecking order. A big durable physique with high muscle density isn't necessary when you have the world under your thumb

>>11230429
That doesn't mean that physical strength is not highly rewarded as anon said.

>>11230554
OK, in terms of non-physical, political / influential power, yes, individual women can legally possess large amounts of money for example with money's whole point being that it abstracts away the concept of value and generalizes it so almost anyone can get the same results from the same quantity of money.
That's certainly a nice thing to be able to have / do.
But again, it's another distraction from the disturbing nature of women being born into that degraded physical state.
By the elephant man could potentially do lots of neat things and exert power over others if he had lots of money back when he was still alive.
But it wouldn't make him stop being the elephant man.
Or, you know, children as another example can sometimes have a lot of power and financial resources at their disposal.
But at the end of the day they're still children. They're still small and weak and will generally be recognized as lesser than adults.
That's all I've been pointing to here, the existential horror of half of the population being degraded by birth into this state of being weaker, smaller, submissive, high pitched, soft, vulnerable, etc.
You can point to things that might offset or distract from that horror, but nothing that outright makes it disappear.

i just hate women unironically

If a woman writes a male protag their is a good chance hes going to be a pussy. They make them far too sensitive/emotional.

>>11230574
How is it, when the most rewarded people have almost none?

>>11230578
>But at the end of the day they're still children.
Legally. Take that away and a 10 year old without legs can still exert power over a fucking nation if he/she is born into a powerful family. Being physically weaker is just as meaningful as having longer or shorter hair in the first world. Same shit with being smaller.

>submissive, high pitched
Not limited to being a woman. Just raises the chance. And again, given how our society works now, factors like being born into the right family, in the right country and so on, are much, much, MUCH more valuable and decide about your experiences more than sex. Would you really prefer to be born a male in some sub saharan village or a female with a billionaire daddy?

>>11230607
Because elites don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
For the average man walking around in public strength is something that makes him attractive to women and men (not necessarily just sexually), it makes him safer, makes him more intimidating and hands him power in any otherwise equal relationship.

>>11228385
They are mostly shit.

This one woman wrote a shit translation of homers Odyssey because of her daddy issues.

>>11230692
They do, only with more room up, and unless you go to the lowest of lower class, the rules still apply. A manlet with a 401k provides more security and has more power than a buffed up factory worker, a fatass in a Mercedes is a more attractive mate than the poolboy with oiled ABS and even a nerdy student has much more power in most situations than a high school dropout who plays football with his friends.

Physical strength obviously never hurts but the main benefit in the first world comes from the improved visuals.

>hands him power in any otherwise equal relationship.
More immediate power. A guy has the power to beat up a gal, she has the power to respond by sending him to jail. So while females are technically in a weaker position, it'd be still a bad call for him use his physical power against her. By a similar logic, anyone with a gun of any gender can become the most powerful person around temporary. Or well, acid for our britbong friends.

>>11230787
No nigger you don't understand, even the threat of possible physical violence is enough to swing power in your favour and i don't mean and explicit threat.
A gun might do the same thing but it isn't socially acceptable to wave a gun around all the time.

There are other things that can give you power, that doesn't mean that physical strength does not give you power.
In all of your examples, yes, one guy has more money but the other is more physically attractive to women and is more probably more socially influential (provided he can speak well enough for whoever he's talking to)

>>11230414
being fat is not a requisite for life. It's bad because it is aesthetically displeasing and bad for your health. Femininity is a requisite for civilization function. How do you not understand that if there was no feminine there could be no masculine? Would all sex be rape in your ideal, faggot world? I thank God that females like being dominated because that lets me be a man without being morally compromised.

Being submissive is not bad when it occurs for healthy mating purposes. It is just something that I don't enjoy as a male, but that is enjoyed by females as a result of their birthright.

>>11228385
>I am wondering if you could explain your views to me?
The vast majority of them can't think like us. They simply lack the logical and self-reflective capacities which are enjoyed by men.
Of course your author isn't the average person, however this applies to both genders. So a woman who is ahead of the pack is right in the midst of men. Whereas men who are beyond the rest of us leave everyone behind. A female can be a genius, but a female genius can't be the smartest. Men will always outperform women in any aspect for which we were designed.
Alternatively women will always win in the emotive faculties. The kindest man in the world cannot be kinder than the kindest woman.

>>11230331
No, conscientious levels are roughly even, with men being more idustrious and women being more organized. As far as creativity, women are higher if not the same. To address the IQ thing: IQs don't write novels, but articulation and creativity. Women are consistently even with creativity, and tend to be more articulate. By our best tests, women should be dominating the market.

>>11230817
You've completely failed to understand why he made the comparison as well as everything else he said, congratulations on being too retarded to participate in the conversation.

>>11230830
>>11230414
Am I having a conversation with high school sophmores (or more likely one samefagging middle schooler) here? Jesus Christ you're retarded.

you seem to be of the opinion that "degraded" or "Submissive" = bad in all cases. You falsely accuse people of misunderstanding you. Degradation, or more correctly submission = bad when male, good when female provided that it is done for socially healthy aims of reproduction. How fucking difficult is this to understand.

>>11230814
>even the threat of possible physical violence is enough to swing power in your favour
In the ghetto, or well high school but who gives a shit about these. Being a 6'6 bodybuilder won't help you to sell more tacos or convince others during a meeting. Though sure, in a 1v1 scenario with a women it can give you the advantage too, depending on her personality.

>provided he can speak well enough for whoever he's talking to
Will be a bigger benefit for the wealthy ugly guy assuming their skills are equal.

>>11230826
>Alternatively women will always win in the emotive faculties.
Sounds like a huge advantage for arts and certain sciences.

> The kindest man in the world cannot be kinder than the kindest woman.
How does that even make sense? Fundamentally kindness requires understanding (EQ) and actions. While women generally have higher EQ, it doesn't take special amounts to bit understanding towards others and when it comes to actions, there is no real advantage for females either. Doubt there are disproportionally more women who work as doctors without borders or the likes.

>>11228385
Sexism.

>>11230414
Unironically, read this anon. It answers your question.

You say that these traits are prior to any culturally relative traditions imposed on them, but Butler very convincingly argues that we cannot speak of something as being "prior to culture."

Plus, any argument from a state of nature is very weak ground. The state of nature is before human history and complex social behaviors can not be inferred from archaeological evidence. We cannot speak with any scientific certainty about gender roles among the earliest humans.

>>11230481
I hate this fake news story.

The Braasch game happened in 1998, back when both Williams sisters were in their teens, and fresh-faced. Neither of them had reached No. 1, that happened in 2002.

Braasch at the time was a seasoned tennis veteran who had been in the top 40 just four years before the game.

In context, it looks more like it was simply an old hand defeating some cocky young upstarts then a battle in the gender wars some make it out to be.

source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/tennis/aus/2017/01/21/serena-williams-nicole-gibbs-australian-open/96876832/

It's partially because /lit/ feels the need to be sexist to gain the approval of people on an siberian horticulture BBS. It's partially because men genuinely cannot relate to women as much as they relate to other men. It's partially because men are just genuinely really good writers, dominate the classics, and women can only really cite "muh oppression" to handwave this fact away.

I think you're a brainlet if you dismiss women out of hand, but I don't think it's surprising for a man to admit to preferring male authors. Men who generallly prefer female authors are usually BASEDboys virtue signalling to women about how enlightened they are for not reading books by "Dead white men".

>>11230927
Holy kek. Saw it posted quite often and it even sounded relatively plausible, so never bothered to look shit up. Quite pathetic to gasp for bullshit like that for something that shouldn't be that hard to prove.

>>11230360
I agree with your argument here, I think it's stupid to dismiss the female sex because they take on the submissive role because that submissive role plays an important role in the continuation of the species. At the same time I do believe that male dominance over women is the natural order of things and women are actually becoming less happy as men become less dominant over women.

I cannot tell you how many professional highly successful women I've heard bemoaning how they can't find a "Good husband" and instead choose to be forever alone. Well no shit they can't society is at a status quo where women dominate universities and instead of trying to get men back into universities they bitch that women haven't taken over STEM as well and push for female-only STEM scholarships. Gee I wonder why women can't find Husbands that are attractive to them? Maybe it's because in an attempt to become men they've turned men into women?

>>11230851
No, not just the ghetto or highschool, in any mundane social situation.

>>11230834
>still bleats with no understanding of the conversation.

>>11230884
muh social constructivism. how about YOU read Schelling

>>11228385
There are some great female writers and thinkers. Flannery O’Connor, George Eliot, Hannah Arendt, etc. but there are more great male writers and thinkers, which makes sense historically.

ITT: disgruntled men who don't realize that 99% of both sex's are just as pathetic

>>11228385
They're brainlets who are unnecessarily limiting themselves. Don't read books just because they're by a woman or a man, read them because they interest you.

Most of them are just bitter because they can't get laid.

>>11228385
It's only a red flag if it's modern fiction written by a women under 60 years old.

>>11228461
there are a few other things going on in that book, not to give it too much credit, but your interpretation I think is more like a minor interpretation compared to other things you might draw from it.

>>11229731
I don't think there are many authors, man or woman, who are being crowned as greats. Not yet. But the past fifty years have included a number of great, women writers; Le Guin, Morrison, to name a pair I have personal experience with.

>>11231247
oh, and Lispector, too!

>>11228461
He once said in an interview that he couldn’t finish old man an the sea because he felt bad for the fish. The dude’s just an obnoxious shit, plain and simple.

>>11228835
/thread

>>11229395
Good post

>>11228835
God Damn

>>11228385
Women are shallow whores.

>>11228540
>first half of the 20th century
exactly

Most modern day women writers are published and praised in virtue of being a women, and not as writers. Huge red flag!

>>11229750
>>11229932
Even I don't know what he means.

>>11228555
As an antifeminist myself, not all women are feminists. Less than half of women actually buy into that bullshit and I have had both substantial friendships and romantic relationships with women who hate feminism almost as much as I do.

>>11230326
>women can be great in ways men can't be
Like what?

>>11229110
It wasn't necessarily a summary to his reply, it was an argument.

>>11229309
>sylvia plath
Please refrain from existence, inferior specimen.

>>11229948
Book recommendations?

>>11230353
It wasn't a summary to his reply, it was a separate argument.

>>11228693
What's wrong with that?

>>11231737
Milkies

>>11231735
Hating feminism doesn't mean they think women are less than men. Ask them this and they would always get triggered.

>>11228441
Same trivial shit as women. Most of them are awfully retarded, even worse than women.

>>11229006
I think you mean "with a sense of entitlement" otherwise you're saying that they really are due a partner by right. Leftist word-warping is a hall of mirrors to bizarro-world

>>11230826
>women
>kind
They are shrewd, cruel Hitler tier eugenicists

>>11231828
Kind of irrelevant post.

>>11230125
ffffffffffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggggggg

>>11228951
based

>>11230829
>source:my asshole
Anyone who has ever spoken to a female knows what insipid creatures they are. The entirety of their imagination is occupied conformist tripe, it's no coincidence that women join cults at rates far higher than men and even in traditional religious settings are the most 'devout'.

>>11230184
I agree. The "fantasy" of wacking up as a woman one day would haunt me instead of excite me.
Imagening being a woman should be unbearable for a guy, I agree, but that same difference is somehow suppsosed to interest you.
>>11231572
>mommy posting in a woman hate thread...
hmmmmm

>>11228385
They find different things interesting and important, generally speaking. Reading for me, is not a meaningless process. If I see something as meaningless, I won't do it, if I can help it.

What I want is escapism, what they want is the one-sided promotion of what I want to escape from. If I'm forced to deal with socio-political gender and economy, I also want some frame of reference, but all I'm offered is extinction, insults and blasphemy.

I don't want to deal with those things. I'll kill the journalists when I absolutely must, but before that, let me have my escapism and philosophy.

>>11228951
based pusy poster

>>11228441
2nd amendment and boobs

There's not enough time in the world to give every author a fair shake as individuals so you have to judge on a categorical level. Publishing is so obviously biased that I can't trust female authors are published based on skill so I just avoid them altogether. It's not just females either. Minorities get the same treatment for the same reason and I avoid modern award winners like Hugo and Nebula because they're overrun by progressives who vote politically.

>>11230829
funny how everything you say is 'women are the same if not better' and yet you take issue with anyone saying men are better at something. typical woman. you are not as creative as men, and it is shown more and more as you have every advantage given to you imaginable in society and still barely create anything. get fucked

>>11228441

>I hate women!!

>>11228683
art through adversity that´s why

It's the leftist obsession with equality of outcome that legitimatizes racism and sexism in literature. Publishers are so focused on increasing female representation that they push out some truly awful stories so it is completely reasonable to assume by default that female authors don't deserve to be there until proven otherwise.

Look at the recent Nebula awards. Of the 25 winners shown, 18 are female and 2 are possibly female. This kind of bullshit isn't limited to awards either. Have a look at the Goodreads news section. Isn't it odd how many females are on the front page? That doesn't look natural to me.

>>11228835
this post explains exactly why men who want to become women are mentally ill. +5 insightful

>>11228441
gathering resources

>>11230360
all women wants to be submissive to an alpha male whether sexually or in other areas, you may like it or not but it´s the true

>>11232457
Come live here, uhm, be with me.... Hope to see you baby

>>11231255
>Lispector

>>11228385
I've recently realized to words the fact that women are most capable of the natural production of thoughts that trascend conceptualization.

>>11230007
And Silver Spoon, you fucking pleb.

>>11232960
kek

>>11231735
The girl who hates feminism is the female equivalent of the male feminist.
Both of them are just trying to get laid.

This is a rare experience but it happens. Anyone here ever just have a large group of guy friends as a kid and then one day out of nowhere a girl appears? And this girl she has no female friends at all.
This girl would probably fuck the whole group.

Protip to female incels if they exist. Infiltrate a MRA group by declaring yourself a female anti feminist and you will have daddy choking you in no time

>>11233006

>>11228441
boipucci

>>11228385
It's just a practical rule of thumb. There are good female authors and bad female authors, but for a variety of reasons these days you're more likely to come across a bad female author than a good one.

If someone is recommending a book written by a female author prior to, say, 1945, unless it's a really famous authoress (Austen, Burney, whatever), it's likely that that female author was deliberately dug up simply in order to increase female "representation" in the era. That's part of the reason why Aphra Behn is so commonly taught now; she's a conveniently female dramatist who also wrote one book with a black protagonist. She's not exactly great, especially compared to her male contemporaries, but she's decent enough to put on a university curriculum. And she's a woman. In short, literary revisionism means that people will try to push substandard female authors in order to make the field of study appear more "inclusive".

With modern books, women tend to be very much female-focused in their works, which is to say that their books tend to be about being a woman. This differs from male authors, who normally do not see the need or even understand the idea of creating a specifically masculine book, which allows them to be much freer in their thought and expression. There are a bunch of other reasons why your average modern female author is typically worse than your average modern male author, but I'll leave it at that.

You're all over complicating this shit. Who cares about the justification? this is a pragmatic issue.

Pick any 100 books at random. Statistically, the ones written by men will be better. This means you're more likely to find something valuable if a man writes it. Sorry women, wait until we can enhance the body so you can finally expunge your feelings from every drop of ink you put in a page.

>>11228782
how does this apply to plath or woolf

>>11228490
>funny enough the dude who crashed into the side of a mountain with a bunch of passengers was a white guy

LOL

>>11233224
More females are the front page of Goodreads because more females read books than males.

>>11233767
The same is reversed when for women. They tend to find a female author better a male.

>>11228385

It's a gross generalisation and not always true but:

- Male writers dominant in terms of being able to write intellectual themes while lacking the ability to make you feel emotionally for the characters.

- Female writers dominant in terms of making you feel emotionally for characters while lacking the ability to use their story to enact deeper themes.

As such, I got no issue with female writers. Much like I have no issues with females in general.

>>11230318
this, unironically

>>11231735

This mirrors my experience. It's usually the not-so-bright-ones who advocate feminism whereas the smart ones choose to concentrate on advancing themselves in what should be considered the actual point of feminism. The former are basically the equivalent of fedoras as we'd know them in the /lit/ world.

Also the really dumb ones don't care. If a girl cares even slightly about celeb gossip then there's a very low chance she'll identify as a feminist.

>>11234004
absolute nonsense, just more cowardice. women cannot write AT ALL, their characters are sociopathic without fail
>>11234040
have met more than enough women who strongly dislike feminism to know its the equivalent of talking about christfaggotry with men, immediate sign of a lack of sexual power. women view their femme counterparts as ugly and boyish, men view religious men as fucking faggot pedos (both correct assumptions)

>>11234004
>while lacking the ability to make you feel emotionally for the characters.
What are you talking about, nigger? Men as angles of logic is a meme when it comes to art, they're definitely generally able to make compelling emotional drama, just with maybe a more 'intellectual' bent at times then females.

>>11233229
Well no shit, men who want to become women (autogynophilia) are just coping with a failure to attract and get with their ideal woman (not necessarily their failure to get any women at all although that is obviously permavirgins are included in the aforementioned). Instead of grueling through the struggle of failure in the hope of one day succeeding, they cop out and opt to become that which they want. It's an extreme case of a man failing to integrate his anima and instead being consumed by it subconsciously.

>>11228441
Other Men.
I'm not bullshitting you, the most loved books by men are about other men.

>>11234871
>>11230318
>>11234030
it took this long

>>11234117

>Men as angles of logic is a meme when it comes to art, they're definitely generally able to make compelling emotional drama, just with maybe a more 'intellectual' bent at times then females.

I agree so perhaps I should have rephrased that.

>>11228441
Living hard lives, violence, hierarchy, beautiful women, justice, honestly. Mostly just the things women don't think about

>>11228441
Power and truth.

>>11234985
Tell me more about these "hard" men

>>11228683
>Hannah Arendt

>>11231748
its not an argument you ignored everything i said and then tried to establish equal value where there is none. its pathetic

>>11228752
mein freund(in)

>>11231007
/thread

>>11231754
Yes, those are the best 5 books by female authors.

>>11229145
Only b/c they're told by their feminist overlords to read more women

>>11228385
If you're expecting virulent irrationals to suddenly become reasonable, you're waiting for disappointment.

I'll save you the time. They hate women because they hate themselves. They cannot value Woman because they do not understand what Woman is. They're caught in a self-destructive maelstrom of thought, and, for some of them, there may be no turning back. It's a perverse manifestation of idolatry - one most of them will be quite literally unable to comprehend - not due to a lack of intelligence, but a distortion of the psyche produced by an excess of wickedness.

If you want the understanding you're asking for (and not the placebo they'll offer you), read Romans 1, Genesis 2, and Ephesians 5. Having done that, you'll have scratched the surface of one, a wonderful mystery, and another, a terrible truth.

>>11231007
this

>>11236221
you writing, was agonizing, to read

>>11228752
Miserable books for miserable people

>>11229355
This is the exact opposite of the data. Marriage actually is a class divide. The poor don't marry and the middle class do. Look it up.

>>11228835
true

>>11233831
>funny enough the dudes who crashed 3 planes full of passengers into buildings weren't white

>>11228441
pussy

>>11233005
I'm a man, actually, and if you really want me to help your pathetic ego by saying how great we are:
Men make up the upper edges of IQ,
Obviously physically stronger,
Better negotiators,
Better at organizing teams to get stuff done together,
Likely handle negative emotions slightly more efficiently,
Better at most abstract thinking, which makes them dominate most sciences
Better at logic, which makes them dominate things like law
Is that good? I never claimed women were better, only that by the differences I know I would expect them to be better authors, and yet they are not, and that leaves me confused.

>>11232856
Source is the general consensus of the big five personality traits, it's really not obscure. I'm not sure what shit you are spewing after that, but I've met women, and no, that's not the case. Cult membership has more to do with a longing for inclusion which women suffer from more often than men, but nothing to do with imagination, so that point is entirely irrelevant. Saying the entirety of their immigration is occupied by any one thing gives you away immediately as an idiot, knowing only superlatives of concepts he does not understand.

>>11228951
based

>>11236402
For someone who doesn't read, I imagine it would be.

>>11236221
Book recommendations?

>>11228576

her eyes are the color of my stool.

midcentury prose was less gendered. i pick up a young author, the tone is overly masculine, overly feminine. subject matter too, usually, especially the females. when a collection gets 'feminist' or starts waddling in female bodily functions, i put it down. a novel i won't bother beginning.

>>11236221

actually, it's just because many females write in an exaggerately 'feminine' style, and dwell on topics like feminism and female biology, and don't do it particularly well.

nobody here is complaining about flannery o'connor or virginia woolf.

the 'red flag' is a selection tool to avoid reading complete shit. if the shit wasn't in the streets, they wouldn't have to step around it.

>>11234048
>To The Lighthouse is anything other than a masterpiece
Anon, one page of Woolf's diaries desu has more insight about the human experience that your magnum opus that your girlfriend really liked.

>>11228835
If I am a man and incapable of abstract thought, what does it make me, how do I cope, and book recommendations for that feel.
Basedposters need not apply

Women write about supremely important topics like relationships, sex, and sex in relationships.

Men write about trite things like what it means to exist or how to best operate in accordance with reality.

>>11231007
>because they can't get laid.
OR... maybe, just maybe it's not?

Some older female writers are good. Modern woman are incredibly vain though.

>>11228784
>DFW
Why, though?

>>11238092
Most women find it hard to seperate art from the man (DFW was a stalker of one of his exes or something)

>>11229376

>implying most or - even many - men had access to these institutions
>implying most great writers have had formal academic training

Your claim is an hypotheses at best which presupposes men and women being cognitively equal in the aggregate.

That said, a female writer isn't a red flag to me, since I don't assume an individual will reflect the average of some group to which said individual may or may not belong.

>>11228801
Monogamy is the glue that holds society together senpai

>>11234985
LOL LARPing faggot ahahaha

>>11228441
Retaking Constantinople

>>11230001

Hello there Buzzfeed blogger generating evidence for next hot take on 4chan alt-right hate of wamen.

>>11238946
Being a hack who can only write 1-2 good sentences every 10 pages doesn't help his case either.

>>11228683
>They'll always have a romantic interest a few swipes away.

Having access to low-resolution romantic experiences with a bunch of neckbeards, losers, and psychopaths isn't fulfilling, you misogynistic coward. Drop the "great women" are better shtick. Your true intentions, your actual feelings, are screaming out from behind your wanky facade.

>>11239469
Legitimate question, how can he be a coward if we're all Anonymous and therefore unaccountable for most purposes?

>>11228441
you

>>11228441
The satisfaction of a task well done. Having a goal, any goal, preferably difficult, and achieving it, preferably with ingenuity and/or strength. Self fulfillment if you wish.
Women can't understand. They are less talented on average, true, but that's not even the main issue. Many men even of moderate talent can have some fulfillment.
Women don't know what they want, so the relations between ends, plans, means, choices, work and satisfaction are completely distorted.

>>11230328
>>11230318
Also:
liquor, hot babes, fast cars, carbohydrates, skydiving, racial harmony, interior design

Any and all threads on /lit/ about women are disastrous. I'm a pretty bad misogynist desu but even I have to admit that this board's amateur psychoanalysis of the opposite gender is horrifically lame.

>>11240039
To what extent of misogynistic are you?

>>11239712

Because even though he's anonymous, he's still concealing his actual intentions. He's performing for other anonymous losers, such as us. He feels the need to compensate. He cannot honestly pronounce his hateful shit like the other Neanderthals in this thread because he's afraid of being judged honestly because on a deep down level of hates himself.

>>11240096
Woman-suffrage-was-a-mistake extent, so pretty entry level.

>>11240203
Don't answer for me, sweetheart, the men are talking.

>>11240302
Otherfagging is my favorite ruse.