Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 443 KB, 894x1426, Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 8.33.40 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12464650 No.12464650 [Reply] [Original]

Can anyone actually refute this piece? It doesn't apply to just women in art, but also women in literature.

Does anyone seriously believe in the myth of the lone genius? That someone can just come from some poor, pastoral family and then become GOAT in art like Michalengelo from sheer skill and genius? Can anyone explain me why I should take these delusions seriously?

>> No.12464686

>>12464650
It's a cope, men are more represented as outliers, and also just smarter on average.

Also the lone genius is half the equation. You need the social setting for him to succeed as well. Doesn't change the relative numbers of men and women capable of fulfilling the role should they have the opportunity.

God I am so superior

>> No.12464699

>>12464650
>Does anyone seriously believe in the myth of the lone genius?
yes

>> No.12464707

Wait, so this is why there's been a sudden backlash against the idea of genius? It makes so much sense now that I think about it.

>> No.12464713

>>12464650
>Does anyone seriously believe in the myth of the lone genius? That someone can just come from some poor, pastoral family and then become GOAT in art like Michalengelo from sheer skill and genius?
Yea, it's true.

>> No.12464719
File: 10 KB, 200x170, 1463246606094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12464719

I like St. Hildegaard, but outlier are just that. And judging by the ideological narrative of feminists, she shouldn't exist, especially during her time period.

>> No.12464722

>>12464699
How come?
>>12464707
Why does it make sense anon? A lone genius isn't that lone if he still depends on the power dynamics that be to get his worked remembered and noted and called a masterpiece to be cherished and studies for generations

>> No.12464738

>>12464707
It does. Genius is, to a degree, subjective.

>> No.12464740

>>12464650
Art is a masculine pursuit. Period.

>> No.12464751

>>12464713
Examples anon?

>> No.12464755

>>12464740
How come anon?

>> No.12464756

>>12464650
It's very funny when women presume they are the only ones struggling with self-doubt and dismissive or patronizing peers. It's also funny to think nude model availability makes or breaks an artist's development. I'll give women this, they are indeed funny.

>> No.12464763

>>12464650
Why do men succeed at chess on a level that women are wholly unable to attain? Surely there are no institutional barriers to entry there.

>> No.12464764

>>12464751
Gabriel García Márquez.

>> No.12464767

>>12464756
>they are indeed funny.
only when they don't intend to be

>> No.12464768

>>12464751
Cormac McCarthy.

>> No.12464769

>>12464650
St. John of the Cross

>> No.12464772

>>12464767
>Austen isn't funny

>> No.12464777

>>12464767
This it's like laughing at a child when they do or say something stupid. Women who are genuinely funny are rare

>> No.12464792

>>12464751
Andrei Rublev

Genius is always lone, but if the genius doesn't have access to the tools for expressing that genius, it will always remain dormant. Nietzsche already made this point. For some reason we need to go over it again at length someone got her feelings hurt by the formulation of a question.

>> No.12464802

>>12464769
>St. John of the Cross
What does he say anon that's relevant to this discussion?

>> No.12464814

>>12464802
No, he is an example

>> No.12464815

>>12464755
Just take a look at history. And even in modern times, the most progressive era in history so far, when women are in fact free, men still excel at art. You can no longer whine about muh institutional sexism. There's even a biological aspect to it, man creates stuff. Always has, always will.

>> No.12464819

>>12464814
Reply to the respective post. Don't be retarded.

>> No.12464824

Please relent from posting academic word salad here. There’s nothing worse than the floundering newspeak of someoen trying to impress their professors or peers. All I got from this was that women are still complaining about institutionalized power structures that are no longer there and also their inner demons. To me reading between the lines it’s also obvious this is a person that views art as a commodified experience and an artist can only truly be recognized f the art world or other institutional
Powers imbue it with meaning and recognition. Disgusting. This is the long way for a woman to explain she wants more attention, no thank you.

>> No.12464836

>>12464824
>reee roasties
Fuck off, incel.

>> No.12464841

>>12464792
>Genius is always lone, but if the genius doesn't have access to the tools for expressing that genius, it will always remain dormant.
So women have a point that material access has limited them from unearthing their inner genius, the few of them that are blessed with this?

>> No.12464842

>>12464836
t. Roastie

>> No.12464843

>>12464836
Nice straw man.

>> No.12464848

>>12464841
Women have the majority of material access. Who is more represented in schools? Who spends more money? It's not men, anon.

>> No.12464850
File: 628 KB, 633x833, VN5Uwg6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12464850

>>12464842
t.

>> No.12464852

>>12464848
Historically anon...come on now

>> No.12464857

>>12464843
>b-but muh impotent reeeing was much more nuanced
It's not a strawman, it's just semantically lossless compression of your autism.

>> No.12464858

>>12464841
You don't have to be a millionaire to own a pencil and a notebook.

>> No.12464864

>>12464850
Is the insinuation here that I’m too ugly to get sex? You act like sexual is the most important thing women have to offer. Telling.

>> No.12464869

>>12464857
It is a straw man. He literally never said that. If you can't discuss without using straw men or ad hominems, please abstain from replying.

>> No.12464871

>>12464819
I did

>> No.12464872

>>12464722
The most truly alone geniuses are studied long after their deaths. Historically speaking, the image of the lone genius is riddled with malaise and fraught with struggle. Kafka is the minor writer par excellence, distantly followed by Huysmans.

Read George Gissing's New Grub Street, it gives a good insight into the men of letters and their responses to the new mechanisms of capitalism.

>> No.12464874

>>12464864
the insinuation is that the negative things you're saying about women are merely insults you've dreamed up out of anger at women having rejected you

this is the only form of argument the internet possesses in defense of women

>> No.12464880

>>12464864
If you haven't noticed yet, women view genetically unfit men as quite literally unworthy of life, and meriting extermination. If you don't have sex, from the female perspective, it is because your existence is worthless -- less than worthless, because you take up resources.

>> No.12464883

>>12464869
>reee everything i dont like is strawman
Okay, incel.

>> No.12464886

>>12464874
There's literally zero insults directed at women. The fact that you don't agree with this doesn't mean it's an insult to the demographic you belong to.

>> No.12464888

>>12464852
I really dont think we can get to the bottom of this because history cant be run repeatedly to experiment with it. I basically think if woman was inclined to art then the various human civilizations would have come to reflect that. To think all around the world it was simply repressed for millenia seems more complicated than, "theyre just not that into it." I dont expect to convince you of this, but its what I think. I have to go make some art now after work because I love doing it.

>> No.12464889

>>12464841
Yes, they certainly do, as would a director who is not allowed to work on certain projects or use certain words because of his race. I think she recognizes the double edged sword inherent in this. This is just such a simple thing, if you carried the very basic idea of a genius needing physical material with which to work one potential stage further you would arrive at this concept. I just don't understand why she felt the need to write this.

>> No.12464890

>>12464883
>reee everything I don't like is an incel
Okay, strawman.

>> No.12464896

>>12464858
That's not how arts worked anon - there was a long traditional education to becoming an artists. A necessary rite of passage was drawing and painting the nude form, the highest form one can imitate, and women were often not allowed to do so in the presence of a nude male, or even nude women in most cases

>> No.12464897

>>12464880
Most sane people view genetically inferior men that way.

>> No.12464898

>>12464886
you said it was a woman looking for attention, as though this were a common occurrene

>> No.12464899

>>12464883
>hurr durr incel hehe
kys cunt

>> No.12464908

>>12464896
>all art is just to draw naked people, this is why we women failed at art!!!11!!1!! Reeeeee

>> No.12464912
File: 704 KB, 492x695, (you).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12464912

>>12464899
You too, sweetie.

>> No.12464913

>>12464897
a distinction without a difference
the point is that, from the female perspective, merely 1/5 men are genetically fit -- are you feeling lucky?

>> No.12464914

>>12464897
That's sociopathic

>> No.12464918

>>12464898
And how's that an insult?

>> No.12464919

>>12464912
And they say that physiognomy don't real. what rot!

>> No.12464923

>>12464912
Is that your boyfriend? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.12464925

>>12464914
It's sociopathic to suggest we should keep the trash in our genetic stock to make some losers slightly less miserable.

>> No.12464927

>>12464908
You wouldn't be funded to create art if you didn't have this technical education anon
>>12464914
Who said sociopathy is a sin? Nature is nasty and brutish

>> No.12464931

>>12464925
I didnt say force girls to fuck them, why do you want to kill them, what is wrong with you?

>> No.12464932

>>12464913
I get to choose which 1/5, so yeah quite lucky ;)

>> No.12464939

>>12464931
I didn't say I want to kill them. Murder is amoral. But their existence is worthless.

>> No.12464941

>>12464927
>You wouldn't be funded to create art if you didn't have this technical education anon
Giga cope. Let's talk about writing. Not hard is it? Public education teaches you how to do it. You can read books from the library. The materials are cheap: a pencil and a notebook. And let's set all this in modern times. Now, where are all the women writers, then?

>> No.12464946

>>12464939
>Murder is amoral
so youre an edgy teenager then, you sound pretty worthless yourself

>> No.12464947

>>12464932
You get to choose the sloppy seconds from attractive women, alpha women.

>> No.12464957

>>12464939
Enjoy the bullet

>> No.12464970

>>12464650
This isn't BTFOing anyone. Stop being delusional.

>> No.12464971

>>12464946
How does that make me edgy? Are you unable to reconcile holding several beliefs at the same time?

>> No.12464977

>>12464971
What ethical system are you using that makes you think murder is amoral? That's edgy shit 101
you are literally giving people a pass to kill you

>> No.12464984
File: 310 KB, 395x525, (you).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12464984

>>12464947
>n-no it's you who's undesirable human refuse
Why, of course, sweetie. Whatever helps you cope.

>> No.12464987

>>12464977
>arguing meta-ethics with sociopaths and/or women
waste of time my dude

>> No.12464994
File: 9 KB, 200x214, displeasure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12464994

>>12464984

>> No.12465003

>>12464977
>murder is amoral? That's edgy shit 101
I'm gonna frame this post. This is like pseud 101.

>> No.12465004

>>12464946
>>12464957
>>12464977
>b-b-but muh rights! you'll die if you say you don't believe in muh rights!
brainlets detected

>> No.12465008

>>12465003
>I'm gonna frame this post. This is like pseud 101.
this is going straight in my syllabus for Pseud 201

>> No.12465010

>>12464755
because they tryna fuck

>> No.12465016

>>12464650
>perennial
>probing
>paradigm
>potency
>patronizing
>puffing

>> No.12465017
File: 573 KB, 635x842, 20190123_204302.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12465017

>>12464984
Let's be honest, how many dicks have you sucked in your life? How many men have told you "I love you" in intimacy? That's what I thought.

>> No.12465020

>>12465008
I accept your concession.

>> No.12465021
File: 151 KB, 887x942, Ryuuko3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12465021

>>12464650
I don't care about equality so his platform is irrelevant to me

>> No.12465024

>fat femanons getting uppity

>> No.12465025

>>12465017
cringe
>>12465020
lame
>>12465016
based
>>12465004
almost based

>> No.12465042
File: 1.10 MB, 556x765, i luv u.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12465042

>>12465017
>told you "I love you" in intimacy?
LMAO boy, you better find yourself a nice daddy to ram your ass. No woman will ever handle a beta this nauseatingly pathetic.

>> No.12465058

>>12465042
"love...intimacy...nauseatingly pathetic.."
who hurt you, sweetie?

>> No.12465084

>>12465058
Love is a strong man silently taking his woman like he owns her, not some skinnyfat söyfaggot whispering juvenile sweet nothings while "intimately" polishing her muff. Look for a daddy or HRT prescription, coz you're a 13 year old girl in a male body, not a man, incelio.

>> No.12465095

>>12465084
"love is a man ... taking his woman like he owns her..."
I'm calling the fucking cops

>> No.12465123

>>12465042
>>12465058
>>12465084
>>12465095
Can you two just suck each other's cocks already. This is worse than Moonlighting

>> No.12465259

This is a very lonely thread

>> No.12465274

>Woah this successful writer was a male, that means I share the same success that them

>> No.12465276

>>12465259
no one here cares how not-lonely and together-with you are, moron

>> No.12465296

>>12465259
t. Dependent on SSRIs faglord

>> No.12465303

>Some people are genetically worse at doing some things such as pattern recognition

This might be the case but everyone here seems to think you can treat someone as less of a human just because of it which doesn't make sense. Women very well might not be as great in certain areas that men are but does that mean we are allowed to be misogynist and treat them worse because of it?

>> No.12465313

>>12465303
What the fuck does that have to do with the original topic?

>> No.12465358

>>12465276
>>12465296

When you have the energy you ought to divest some into some self care

You are loved and appreciated

>> No.12465373

>>12465358
For the record I appreciate this thread and OP as an example of how to properly bait niggas.

>> No.12465414

>>12465313
Misogynists getting BTFO

>> No.12465433

>>12465042
>nobody has told her that they love her
You failed as a woman lmao just kys already

>> No.12465455

>>12464650
Wait a second, you're claiming that Michelangelo was merely the product of personal effort, and not born to become a genius? Same with Shakespeare, a man who never even attended a higher institution of learning, yet has become an industry within higher institutions of learning for the millenia since his day?

Not being rude, but I really don't see how anyone could deny the sheer, cosmically-endowed genius granted to outlier individuals like these.

>> No.12465462
File: 378 KB, 506x507, borntodie.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12465462

>>12465373
based and baitpilled

>>12465358
lamepost

>>12465303
orbiter detected

>>12465274
strawpost

>>12464719
perfection

>> No.12465475

>>12465313
quite a lot desu
brainelt

>> No.12465519

>>12465462
based opinion poster

>> No.12465567

Why are those that call others incels almost invariably incels themselves, attempting to white-knight some pussy into their lives?

>> No.12465572

>>12465567
incel spotted

>> No.12465579

>>12465567
>you guys are just complaining about our shitposting because you are trying to get laid

"no"

>> No.12465654

>>12464686
it's cope. the argument seems to be that individual preconditions for achievement held women back which assumes men never had equal or similar preconditions. men had the ability to draw tiddies while women had no dicks to draw? seems like a pretty weak argument. most retards are men, most genius is male. women will not acknowledge male suffering or failure in addition to achievement because their brains are wired to ignore men unless they succeed.

>> No.12465686
File: 15 KB, 251x242, 6dBt2Oj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12465686

>>12465567
>n-no it's people who call me an incel that are the real incels!!11

>> No.12466409

>>12464650
We gave women a chance to prove themselves by allowing them access to the same institutional resources men share, but all they can write about is "muh oppression" because that's all they know. From writing such a point of view, they end up writing something only they can relate to while alienating the rest of the world. In other words, they failed to create something truly beautiful and magnificent for the whole world to enjoy that transcends superficial barriers such as class, gender, and race. The same case applies for blacks too. Welp, it's time to put women back in the kitchen and niggers back on the plantations.

>> No.12466432

>>12464763
The barriers are cultural. Women aren't encouraged to learn chess at a young age, essentially a perquisite for grandmastership. Of course there are more high achieving grandmasters, theres a larger talent pool to pick from.

>> No.12466446

>>12466409
cringe

>> No.12466451

>>12465654
it's a symptom of general mollycoddling of women. but if you were a patron and you had to choose an artist to paint you a work you'd go for the one who'd actually completed academic training yes?

>> No.12466460

>>12466432
imagine actually believing this lmao

>> No.12466490

>>12464880
>If you don't have sex, from the female perspective, it is because your existence is worthless
What about gay men? They have no reporoductive purpose, unless you project their usefulness outside the domain of reproduction. Generally, I'd say women don't treat gay men as if they are worthless, quite the contrary in fact. They dont evaluate men on the sole grounds of reproductive efficiency.

>> No.12466508

>>12466460
Woah nice rebuttal

>> No.12466513
File: 84 KB, 1000x1414, 1546046154776.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12466513

>>12465572
>>12465579
>>12465686

Post body and number of sex partners, incel

>> No.12466531

>>12466508
imagine "encouraging" children, especially girls, to do something like studying to be chess grandmasters and contextualizing it as gender liberation lmao

>> No.12466533

>>12464650
it's been a century, these institutional barriers are nothing more than a delusion at this point, repeated in order for one to revile in their mediocrity

>> No.12466538

>>12466490
gay men are the equivalent of eunuchs -- slaves and ornamentation

>>12466513
pic related I assume?

>> No.12466549

>>12466538
Incel is a reddit word, invented by reddit losers who created the subreddit r/incels because they couldn't get laid.
If you use the word incel, you are a redditor.
I agree with you on faggots, they are inferior men

>> No.12466561

>>12466549
funny -- sounds exactly like something a redditor would say.

>> No.12466594

>>12464751
Charles Dickens had to drop out of school at twelve to help support his family, and worked as a child laborer in a shoe polish factory.

Herman Melville’s father also bankrupted his family and then died when Melville was 13 years old. He self-educated, eventually became a school teacher briefly, and then signed on to become a sailor (not an easy or glamorous job) at 20 years old, and the rest of his life was all self-education.

>> No.12466613

>>12466561
Cope

>> No.12467099

>>12464751
Hitler

>> No.12467118

>>12464686
>and also just smarter on average.
wrong, IQ tests prove otherwise

>> No.12467124

>>12464756
your post proves everything in the text though

>> No.12467131

>>12465455
Shakespeare wasn't even a real person

>> No.12467154

>>12467118
yikes...

>> No.12467174

>>12464772
>english are funny

>> No.12467178

>>12464872
>Kafka is the minor writer par excellence

neck yourself scum.

>> No.12467182

>>12467154
great argument i stand corrected
clearly iq tests were wrong

>> No.12467186
File: 14 KB, 650x363, qbxNInO-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12467186

>>12467182
Iq tests aren't wrong but you are.
The majority of smart people are men.

>> No.12467191

>>12464650
The only thing this article said is:
>there haven’t been a lot of great women artists because of institutional power
That’s literally it. No evidence has been presented. No argument has been made. Nothing claimed has been reinforced. It’s just some sperg saying what has been greentexted above in an excessive and needlessly wordy way.

>> No.12467295

>>12466594
Melville could never have written Moby Dick if he weren't a destitute sailor either

>> No.12467316

>false consciousness

but /lit/ assures me that feminism and other family resemblance positions aren't "cultural marxism"

>> No.12467332

>>12467186
fucking hell, read the fucking graph you posted you retard
it means that THERE'S MORE HIGH IQ MEN THAN WOMAN
but as you can see it's also true of LOW IQ MEN
my point was that man aren't more intelligent than woman ON AVERAGE because as you can clearly see in YOUR FUCKING GRAPH THE AVERAGE IS THE SAME IN BOTH CASES
you idiots will be the death of me

>> No.12467338

>google essay
>"Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" is a 1971 essay by American art historian Linda Nochlin
>Linda Natalie Weinberg was born the daughter of Jules Weinberg and Elka Heller (Weinberg) in Brooklyn, New York[3] and raised in the borough's Crown Heights neighborhood.[4]

Wow. Her original name was Weinberg, from Brooklyn.

INTERESTING. I wonder if she is of Icelandic descent?

>> No.12467341

>>12464751
Herman Melville

>> No.12467342

>>12467332
I'm not the same guy you fucking nigger subhuman

>> No.12467349

>>12464763
Lol this is such a bad example and anyone actually interested in this specific question would know so

>> No.12467353

>>12464751
Bach

>> No.12467357

>>12464939
You must be 18 to post on 4chan

>> No.12467365

>>12467338

She didn't even make the list of Icelandic feminists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminists_by_ethnicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminists_by_religion

>> No.12467558

>>12464650
Intellectuals have taken the arts hostage but still don’t understand it.

There have been great women artists anyway

>> No.12467561

>>12464650
There's institutional discrimination about women and other "minorities". It's called biology. Abolish biology by hanging yourself to live another day.

>> No.12467587
File: 132 KB, 1200x640, Quotation-Thomas-Paine-A-body-of-men-holding-themselves-accountable-to-nobody-ought-41-77-41[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12467587

>>12465004
there's literally no such thing as moral, so there can't be amoral or even immoral. there's only ethical.

>> No.12467608

>>12464650
Despite the butthurt responses throughout this thread the increase in /lit/ posts specifically directed towards women as a subpopulation and their obvious baseline acceptability is I think a serious culture change on the board and I'm glad to be participating in it by making similar posts myself. I don't browse anywhere but /lit/, so I honestly don't care if the rest of 4chan remains a shithole, but this is /lit/ for chrissake, land of the ostensibly bigly brained: woman-hating is stupid and the meme is dead and let's carry on.

>> No.12467619

>>12467608
>woman-hating is stupid
Saying they're worse than men doesn't mean I hate them.

>> No.12467642

>>12467619
you think women are worse than men?

>> No.12467655

>>12467642
Yes.

>> No.12467660

>>12467642
Intellectual they are, does anyone deny this? But anons are silly to think that just because women fail at masculine pursuits, then they should be shoved into the oven. We need each other to create a better society, however, I will acquiesce the current power dynamics are unnatural and need corrections

>Woman is a "matchmaker". By contrast, the duty of the male, or the masculine aspect of personality, is to strive to become a genius, and to forgo sexuality for an abstract love of the absolute, God, which he finds within himself.

>> No.12467664

>>12467660
>Intellectual they are
careful, your intellectual superiority is showing

>> No.12467667

>>12467660
I hope that none of the plebbit adolescents that find their way to /lit/ take all of this pseudo-Christian neo-Platonist ascetic LARPing seriously, but I suppose that there are much worse influences out there on 4chan than faux idealism.

>> No.12467668

All the legal barriers for woman to become whatever the fuck they want are essentially gone or even encourage them to do so. If you cant cut it you cant cut it, at the end of the day your worth will be calculated by men and women alike. This social engineering tirade they wish to accomplish just seems ingenuine

>> No.12467673

>>12467660
oh intellectually but what’s intellect worth
emerson said pure intellect is the pure devil

>>12467655
i prefer women

>> No.12467674
File: 70 KB, 1099x740, good_will_hed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12467674

>>12467667
>plebbit adolescents that find their way to /lit/ take all of this pseudo-Christian neo-Platonist ascetic LARPing seriously
I'm not a plebbitor, but I've unironically have fallen this and I'm 19 yo - why should i not be taking this seriously?

I-I just wanted to be a based zoomer

>> No.12467680

>>12464722
Anyone depends on power dynamics to do anything, always, ever. If that's what your framework for judging things is, then nothing worthwhile has ever been achieved in the world. If that's what you think, then just say so.

>> No.12467684

I think the only issue is that at the current period women have equal, if not greater, access to these resources and we have seen a noticeable decline and homogenization of every field of art and scholarship that they have entered in significant numbers. I really do think that the way in which they receive pleasure of their genitals causes them to be guided by feelings and desires anthetical to those that produce great art.

>> No.12467688

>>12467673
>emerson said pure intellect is the pure devil
why did he say this? I agree with this sentiment seeing professors like this and how devoid of a real soul they seem to be, but I don't have an exact reasoning behind this sentiment. Can you enlighten me?

>> No.12467714

>>12467674
There's nothing wrong with seeking a more complex value system than rote instant gratification hedonism but the more seriously you look at value the more apparent it is that the truest standard of value by which we operate is a sort of private organismic valuing rather than value as some grand objective entity; similarities in value system between individual persons are inevitable but these are most likely the result of overlaps in human physiology and culture rather than being due to some thing outside of human experience that humans somehow acquire access to. To attempt to wholly reject "bodily pleasures" or "passing vanites" is to arbitrarily select a small corner of pleasure as eternal, but viewing things from a phenomenological, epistemological stance, there is no reason to differentiate feeling and valuing processes in this manner. The best standard I have found is to seek out moral and emotional persistence or sustainability, which does involve an asceticism of sorts insofar as I postpone one joy for another one, but it comes from a place of intellectual humility rather than hubritic certainty claims that I know everything that there is to know about God and the Absolute and what it requires of me.

>> No.12467722

>>12467688
he said it’s pure and cold. the worst of all hells, says dante’s inferno, is the hell of ice.

>> No.12467723

Its really simple, women just cant accept that the intelligence of men is far more variable allowing for both more geniuses and retards. Men were set up to compete with each other from day one, considering that there are typically more young men than single fertile women at any one time and there are always more boys than girls born. Part of excellent artistry is mating strategy, men get involved in the arts so they can attract women whether conciously or unconciously done. Literally everything men do, all of our genius, all of our heights, all our incredible athletic achievement has been because we’ve been set up to compete and fight each other from day one. Women inherently can’t understand this. In most societies, they compete to attract the best quality men while men compete just to get a woman at all. Reproduction is all but assured for them. Women have trouble understanding that to be a man is to be thrown to the deep end from birth, whether a man drowns is up to him. If he drowns nobody cares, thats just another body on the pile to nature. A genetic dead end. That’s the world for men.

>> No.12467729

>>12467684
>I really do think that the way in which they receive pleasure of their genitals causes them to be guided by feelings and desires anthetical to those that produce great art.

Its very true, women are way more obsessed with sex than many men in this day and age tbqh. While its a good topic for many forms of art or scholarship they oversaturate these areas with these topics.

>> No.12467733

>>12467723
Of that is the case, then why are so many great artists gay?

>> No.12467735

>>12467714
> it comes from a place of intellectual humility

lmao judging by your writing style, and your posts in this thread, you most certainly lack this.

>> No.12467738

>>12467729
all art is erotic picasso said

>> No.12467740

>>12467733
there has never been a great artist who’s dominant personality isn’t female

>> No.12467745
File: 149 KB, 1024x922, 1518358071066.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12467745

>>12467349
actually it's the perfect example you nigger. a male is way more likely to pick up chess because he likes it. he might like it because he sees an intrinsic value in chess. he doesn't care if everyone in the world plays chess or only a handful do. He will do it in the most dumb way possible, for his own love of what goes on in the game. There is the obvious downside to this: you will get tons of males investing time into shit like getting 200mil exp in runescape

a woman on the other hand NEEDS there to be some vast cultural background where chess is played everywhere, where people openly talk about chess and where tons of other women also play chess. In other words, she waits until it's "safe" to play chess before playing it. That's why it's always women shilling about 'muh' barriers to entry, muh cultural influence and so on.

The best female chess players were raised by two parents who performed an experiment by homeschooling children and forcing them to play chess from the onset. To these women, chess is literally an intractable part of social existence.

daily fucking reminder that Bobby Fischer and his sister bought a chess set of their own accord, she lost interest where he went on to become a legend

>> No.12467747

>>12467733
>confusing ontogeny and function

>> No.12467749

>>12467733
>whether consciously or unconciously
Even if you’re gay you’ll still do things that make you more attractive as a mate whether you conciously recognize this or not. Even then, is there not sexual competition amongst gay men?

>> No.12467753
File: 17 KB, 625x626, 1536901892488.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12467753

>>12467735
>it was complexly written so it's pretentious

>> No.12467754

>>12466549
This
>>12466561
kys

>> No.12467757

>>12467738
Hmmm I can see where hes coming from, I guess another way to put it is females have removed a lot of the naunce to the topic in their pursuits

>> No.12467763

>>12467729
It’s difficult. I think any oppressed (as the term is used these days) will tend towards a very limited and corporeal expression because their main concern is the alleviation of bodily stress or mental stress that is incurred due to the body. That being said, it is exacerbated by the nature of vaginal pleasure and made all the worse because of it .

>> No.12467764

>>12467738
>all art is erotic picasso said
how? how is the pieta erotic? don't throw any freud shit at me anon

>> No.12467766

>>12467753
>complexly written
Nah, you're a status obsessed pseud using word salad. Here's a test for you to prove otherwise: write out an eidetic reduction for us of something you took joy in this week. If you take longer than 5 minutes to do this, or can't respond in an adequate manner, you are most certainly an overly-theoretical poseur trying to impress people on an image board (like you have been since you came in this thread).

>> No.12467767

most women write because of social validation (there are exceptions of course), hence the muh oppression theme that reeks in their mediocre works

most man write because they see value in doing it regardless if it´s popular or not

>> No.12467772
File: 158 KB, 1200x731, DdTpaXSWsAARnig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12467772

>>12467332
lol ok

>> No.12467775

>>12467767
>hence the muh oppression theme that reeks in their mediocre works
Double the oppression for the woman in the OP as she is Jewish: >>12467338

>> No.12467776

>>12467772
This is unironically low IQ. Of course men are going to have larger brain volume when they are overall larger - they should've used ratios to compare. Stop anon you're embarrassing yourself.

>> No.12467786

>>12467772
”Nmvh” you mongoloid, it’s been proven despite academia trying its hardest to keep it quiet.

>> No.12467797

>>12467763
That makes sense, but in a way the dismay it may be for women, that its largely on them as well when they can finally say that their status as oppressed is officially gone. I dont think well see a true female art renaissence for a long time, we will likely be long dead.

>> No.12467819

>>12467776
>they should've used ratios to compare
Why?
Brain volume is FAR more correlated to intelligence than brain to body ratio.

>> No.12467846

Educational standards1 for women have always2 lagged behind those of men3.

1 both by way of societal gender roles and expectations as well as mininum education required by law.
2 this is measurable by looking at historical civilization as recent as 250 years ago in Colonial New England.
3 for example, the Massachusetts colonly did not ratify until 1771 their childhood education laws of 1710 to dictate that women must be taught to write; this followed a series of such laws and, notably, still neglected to include arithmetic in female curriculum

>> No.12467854

>>12467846
But does that explain the cultural decline that has occurred since it’s been reversed?

>> No.12467862

People often misconstrue misogyny with hate for women- in practice, it is closer to resentment and pity. Very, very few men actually hate women, those that do are often repressing homosexuals or transexuals. The melange of misogyny always contains unrequited lust, desire, betrayal, and disappointment

>> No.12467865

>>12467854
It hasn't been reversed. There is still widespread educational inequality even in Western civilization. You can't redeem thousands of years of (sure, justifiable) discrimination in a few hundred years.

>> No.12467900

>>12467766
I'm an advocate of the primacy of feeling, anon, the immediate aesthetic response. I have yet to see a convincing logical reduction of that from any thinker, and I'm certainly not going to attempt to if nobody else is capable of it, but that doesn't mean that feeling doesn't exist. To do without inarticulate valuing (whose articulate unpackings are always necessarily post hoc) is to be nothing but barren reason.

>> No.12467907

>>12467846
>always
>this is measurable by looking at historical civilization as recent as 250 years ago in Colonial New England

Amazing how retards use modally necessary claims like "always" then go on to support it with a contingent single example from a specific period in time and space.

>> No.12467924

>>12464650
technological cultural changes in premodern societies were adopted by men and women in relation to how those two groups at one point acuired new ideas and concepts and applied them to artifacts for judgement. Men accounted for both much lower accomplishments overall, but also more amongst a small majority. Women accomplished in a much more illusive way a method of viewing objects that men are subservient to today. The viewing of such is a technology incorporated because women allowed for it to be seen as such. There middling culture cannot be studied except in critique of the critique and so therefore subject to ridicule and laughter, which has become our master. The idea of genius is itself an allowance for history but not one of science or social sciences, but one only of the nattering and bickering of nuns.

>> No.12467968

>>12467907
18th century New England is a prime example of "turn-of-the-century" societal change, representing an agrarian civilization on the coattails of technological advancement brought about by the post-antebellum Industrial Revolution. Men risked their lives in war and in coal mines, women were depended on to bear and rear children. You can look at the past thousands of years of civilization if you'd like further examples of how historical sociopolitical landscapes have encouraged gender discrimination.

It's not like you'd accept my argument even if I traced that thread from Ancient Greece, so fuck off.

>> No.12467988

>>12467924
>The idea of genius is itself an allowance for history but not one of science or social sciences, but one only of the nattering and bickering of nuns.
You're saying there's no such thing as genius in the sciences or social sciences? It's just a tool to construct fanciful historical narratives?

>> No.12467994

>>12467757
more power to them

>> No.12467997

>>12467865
By every metric in the US women have already surpassed men in education. It seems to me like it’s been more than reversed.

>> No.12468000

>>12467764
all uncommissioned art is erotic

>> No.12468004

>>12467968
>It's not like you'd accept my argument even if I traced that thread from Ancient Greece, so fuck off.

Your argument is garbage, and you are trying to ape some sort of academic while lacking any sort of sophistication or competence. Typical of some worthless grad student who solely took survey courses and regurgitated the information back without learning how to think. Asserting a modally necessary term like "always" and then supporting it with contingent historical claims is not just idiotic, it's a modal scope fallacy. No one serious would make this mistake. You are amateurish and a larper.

>> No.12468036

>>12467994
Sure but its been done many times even before them so it becomes a bit trite. At least imo

>> No.12468046

>>12467994
more power to become cool wine aunts with barren wombs and lots of cats

just what the dirtbag left bugmen rapists salivate over

>> No.12468054

>>12468036
lots of great works of art had been 'done before'
it's all moving whichever medium it is further along the same path, that's all right
when an artist tries to experiment - that's a great mistake

>> No.12468063

>>12468004
You're deflecting. It's inarguable that gender equality in education isn't a relatively recent development. Provide a counterargument and stop sperging.

>> No.12468087

>>12464941
>Where are all the women writers then?
Are you playing dumb or did you mean to say "genius" women writers? There are a ton of successful female writers from the past 100 years, and you've heard of lots of them so it would be fucking stupid to list them all here.

Historically it would require a technical education for a woman to become a writer. Not to mention that ink and paper used to be much more expensive than they are now, and literacy much less common. Even then, women have been writing novels professionally ever since novels have existed. Not seeing your point anywhere in here

>> No.12468107

>>12468046
oh my gosh

>> No.12468116

cope sweetie based incel genius women lol btfo strawman ree

>> No.12468137

>>12468063
>Provide a counterargument

haha, you sure are a self-assured arrogant bumpkin that is out of his depth. I gave you a counter-argument you dumb larper, it's just you are too stupid to understand what I'm saying. Your academic larping above with your referenced numbers tried to support the term "always" (modally necessary) with a specific example from history (modally contingent). The move from contingent claims to a necessary claim is a modal scope fallacy. Hence a part of your claim you made doesn't infer what you think it infers. Pointing out a faulty inference as part of your larger set of claims is at least one way to give a counter-argument. You would know this if you had any actual competence in reasoning, and weren't some rube that just regurgitates the powerpoints from his purple-haired history professor.

I'm not the one deflecting here. You've been dabbed on, son.

>> No.12468148

>>12468063
He's pointing out that saying that something was "always" true, then pointing out some historically contingent examples of that thing being true, does not actually prove that it is and was "always" true.

>> No.12468162

>>12468063
>It's inarguable that gender equality in education isn't a relatively recent development
I don't think that's what you actually meant to say buddeh. You tired lad?

>> No.12468280

Its funny that the trends are actually pointing to female superiority rather than actual equality. Gonna be an interesting few hundred years.

>> No.12468286

>>12468148
Yes, I understand what he's saying. Capitalizing on a single qualifier without addressing the crux of the assertion (>>12468063) is no better than if he were to shout and wave his arms around wildly and insist that he wins on a technicality. He's not arguing the implicit assertion that educational gender standards have, to a significant measure, been historically inequitable. His next move should either be to deny the claim, perhaps by pointing to periods in history where that is not true (especially re: the broader topic of gender representation in the arts), or to argue that it's not relevant for XYZ reasons.

Jumping up and down and crying, "YOU USED AN INACCURATE WORD!" is not a reasonable rebuttal.

>>12468162
What do you think I meant to say?

>> No.12468289

>>12468280
I think that is just the result of the transition from industrial to service oriented economies. I don’t know how sustainable our current lifestyle is:

>> No.12468326

i'm going to grad school and every woman i've encountered, both in undergrad and postgrad, has been wildly incompetent or celebrated for their mediocrity despite being overrepresented
this is just my experience of course

>> No.12468331

>>12468326
forgot to mention it's a top 15 school

>> No.12468336

>>12468280
This will go in the other direction once Islam takes over places in Europe.

>> No.12468348

>>12468286
that it's inarguable that gender equality in ed IS relatively recent.

>> No.12468367

>>12468286

Looks to me like a completely reasonable rebuttal since he outlined where you were wrong in your reasoning. You're the one being unreasonable here by characterizing it as mere wordplay.

>> No.12468412

>>12468336
Islam won't change Europe any more than Europe will change Islam. The Caliphate will be woke and genderfluid

>> No.12468436

>>12468348
No, because that would be the opposite of my position.
> it's arguable that gender equality in education is a relatively recent development
> it's inarguable that gender equality in education isn't a relatively recent development

>> No.12468465

>>12468436
but your statement (the 2nd one) contradicts everything you said (ie: that ed standards were historically worse for women)

>> No.12468473

>>12464722
because i believe in genetic determination of intelligence and the indomitable nature of genius in the face of stupefying forces.

>> No.12468478

>>12468412
>europe won't change islam
>caliphate will be woke

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

>> No.12468479

>>12468326
i'm oxford & my course is mostly girls & they're all v. hard-working and clever.

>> No.12468511
File: 1.16 MB, 1618x1885, 1547033000326.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12468511

>>12464815
>biological aspect: man creates stuff
Have you ever voluntarily opened a biology book, pseud?

>> No.12468526

>>12468511
Have you opened a history book?

>> No.12468565

>>12468436
Peak illiteracy.

>> No.12468650

>>12464650
You ever notice that since women entered the ranks of government and cultural institutions that expressions of artistic genius have been utterly stifled?

It's almost as if sacrificing patriarchy on the altar of equality has doomed the entire race.

>> No.12468704

>>12464650
This is definitely in the top five trash threads posted on /lit/

>> No.12468723

>>12468650
if this were a troll it'd have been so funny

>> No.12468793

>>12464650
didn't read the thread or the OP but everything in the image could be said for "poor people" as well as "women" lol. replace "women" with "the impoverished" and it's the same exact shit. injustice exists, thanks for pointing that out feminism. i think they should focus less on making me agree that society is unfair to minority groups and focus more on making me give a fuck about their minority group.

>> No.12468898

>>12467118
>IQ tests prove otherwise
IQ tests do prove that men are on "average" as smart as women, but they are distrubuted in diferent ways. There are more high IQ men than women, but at the same time, more lower IQ men than women.
Women are prone to mediocracy since they have the role of the "choosers".

>> No.12468908

>>12468650
>Women's period of storm and stress.
In the three or four civilized European countries, one can in a few centuries educate women to be anything one wants, even men--not in the sexual sense, of course, but certainly in every other sense. At some point, under such an influence, they will have taken on all male virtues and strengths, and of course they will also have to take male weaknesses and vices into the bargain. This much, as I said, one can bring about by force. But how will we endure the intermediate stage it brings with it, which itself can last a few centuries, during which female follies and injustices, their ancient birthright, still claim predominance over everything they will have learned or achieved? This will be the time when anger will constitute the real male emotion, anger over the fact that all the arts and sciences will be overrun and clogged up by shocking dilettantism; bewildering chatter will talk philosophy to death; politics will be more fantastic and partisan than ever; society will be in complete dissolution because women, the preservers of the old custom, will have become ludicrous in their own eyes, and will be intent on standing outside custom in every way. For if women had their greatest power in custom, where will they not have to reach to achieve a similar abundance of power again, after they have given up custom?

>> No.12469106

>>12464650
>does anyone seriously believe in the myth of the lone genius?

The leftists refuses to believe that any superiority in the world is inherent. Intelligence, beauty, talent. Why? because that would also mean their own inferiority is inherent. Weakness and insecurity is the bedrock of leftism and the nature of women.

>> No.12469132

>>12467819
>Brain volume is FAR more correlated to intelligence than brain to body ratio.
Hate to intervene here but higher brain mass doesnt always mean higher intellect or intelligence.
Its a shame how many studies use this as a misleading title to push a certain bias. This also happened with the lasted weed "study" where they also told that weed increases brainmass but only deep into the article they explained that those brain regions that increased only provocted more anxiety.

>> No.12469197

>>12468704
of all time?

>> No.12469266
File: 51 KB, 638x558, 1524482116319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12469266

>>12469132
>>volume
>"hurr hurr brain mass blah blah blah"

imagine browsing /lit/ but not be able to read

>> No.12469293

>>12467819
why are there so many manlet philosophers and writers? wouldn't you expect giants to dominate intellectual pursuits?
t. sincere physiogonomy-unaware poaster

>> No.12469304

>>12469266
My bad, it was supposed to mean volume instead of mass. In a matter of fact the mass of the brain in that situation does also increase, not just the volume.

>> No.12469318

>>12469266
whered you get that illustration of joe rogan? may i save it?

>> No.12469323

>>12468908
Great minds think alike, eh?

>> No.12469362

>>12469293
Height and brain volume are correlated in the general population, but at the tail end of the intelligence distribution you find a lot small people with abnormally large heads.

>> No.12469524

>>12464872
>The most truly alone geniuses are studied long after their deaths.
Will internet change this in some way?

>> No.12469541

>>12464939
>Isaac Newton was worthless because he didn't dip

>> No.12469589

>>12467776
>Standardized

>> No.12469885

>>12469524
what you mean anon? fewer genius works will go unnotice in people's lifetimes?

>> No.12469932

>>12469885
I mean that it's easier for biggest loners and schizoids to share their work thanks to the internet. I was curious if you think that more geniuses might get recognized in this age of connection

Sorry if I was unclear, ESL here.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action