/lit/ - Literature

>>15128762
They used to be a man if it's any consolation

Has there ever been a succinct characterization of how women typically write. I know what you're talking about much I haven't read enough women to really articulate it.

There is this observant, judgemental quality. Almost a disqualifying one. This is heavily present towards men, but pretty much the world as well. There is an absent of the spirit and more an emphasis on the physical. Anyone else?

>>15128762
I don't know. I've been looking into it since the sissy-hypno hypothesis gained prominence. It's full of women and MTFs. ZERO FTMs. Some say the gender accelerationism explains this but I remain unconvinced. I propose someone infiltrate the accelerationist tranny discords, I would do it myself but reading Fanged Noumena and Cyclonopedia already produced some gender dysphoria, for now it's under control, but I fear extended exposure to this material would drive me over the edge -- this is what they truly mean by "deterritorialization."

>>15128762
How can women write like fucking shits if they don't even exist?

>>15128789
always feels like they try to put themselves into it, as if telling their life stories as a woman, or as a mother, or as a idfk matter to the subject at hand. Like this bitch was trying to explain a term of Deleuzian origin which was used by Land and the first paragraph is her talking about her fucking life and how it relates to it.

Seriously I wanna punch a fucking wall do these fucking whores seriously think I give any tangible amount of a shit for her to be wasting my fucking time by telling me she worked with some fucking bullshit beforehand

I came to the article to read about Land and Deleuze I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU ARE

>>15128789
>There is this observant, judgemental quality.
I've read the opposite, that women's writings are often derived of moral content and purely descriptive, almost purely naturalistic.
This would actually be in line with your last descriptor
> There is an absent of the spirit and more an emphasis on the physical.
But judgement is inherently spiritual even when it is geared towards the physical and informed by the physical. Your assessment thus borders on the self-contradictory.

The truth is that you can spin it any way you like as long as you safely stay within the realm of talking about insubstantial thing, like that elusive "how women typically write". Ask yourself: could you use your assessment to tell in advance whether a given excerpt has been written by a man or a woman? Otherwise it's mostly just cope.

>>15128812
*deprived of

here’s a photo of OP’s author btw

MTF or just really ugly?

>>15128762
>somethingfeelswrong.jpeg
Of course it does, you're reading about Fanged Noumena.

>reading article about the Communist Manifesto
>omfg capitalism is mentioned! I literally can't even.jpg

Get rekt you clueless dodecahedron.

>>15128812
> you can spin it any way you like as long as you safely stay within the realm of talking about insubstantial thing, like that elusive "how women typically write"
the fact that womanhood is the most insubstantial thing out there is what makes this spot on

>>15128834
Exactly, it's like womanhood is a formless blob in which people put whatever they don't want to see in men.

>>15128821
shoulders look thin enough
she's just ugly

>>15128846
you’re right
i dont want to see my cock in men, i want to see it in women

>>15128861
That's fair, also works for fingers and tongues and bouillabaisse.

>>15128821
she's alright. I could be her friend. but she gives stronge liberal feminazi vibes so that's kind of icky rather than her face.

>>15128824
>>15128834
>>15128846
>>15128853
>>15128864
>>15128871
you all sound like women

>>15128762
>be me
>write a chapter for my book
>set it aside
>come back next day, read it
>its fucking shit I cant believe I wrote this fucking trash
Any one else?

>>15128853
>>15128871
Are you stupid? That thing has a cock. Look at its face. That's the stare of someone who knows there's a cock in their pants.

>>15128883
Precisely the point m8.

>>15128892
I always assume whatever I write must be trash. Sometimes I'm positively surprised upon rereading. You've got to manage your expectations anon.

>>15128812
I meant observant, judgemental in accordance of her own selfish (not necessarily negative) desires. What she can get out of men, the flaws of those men, the deep insecurities of those men. And all with a cold, blasse attitude like what she is saying is nothing. Indifferent; nothing deeper to unpack there. She doesn't care about someone else's inner character because it doesn't matter to her. She has no curiosity because she is truly the center of the universe's story. This is essence of the descriptive quality you mentioned. Am I on to something or do I just really not like this one Margaret Atwood book I tried to read?

>>15128892
That's every writer anon.
Your first 100,000 words will all be trash.
After that it will trash before redrafting.
Unless you're talking about non-fiction, that's a bit easier.

>>15128771
kek