[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 63 KB, 720x960, 1546262473775.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13719689 No.13719689 [Reply] [Original]

I personally find the hate against women authors foolish. Most women readers reads more of women than men, so a general assertion can be made that women relates to what women writes and men relates to what men writes. This eliminates any possibility of a gender-based objective claim to be valid.

>> No.13719708

>>13719689
And what do you read, with grammar like that?

>> No.13719739

>>13719708
I can't see any grammatical mistakes.

>> No.13719784
File: 76 KB, 713x950, 1215fbe1e75b3dcff46db534c72e48a0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13719784

>>13719689
They're called "authorettes," asshole.

>> No.13719785

>>13719739
There are some subject-verb agreement issues

>> No.13719867

>>13719689
They can be good, but male authors are almost always leagues better. It's like most teachers are female, but the good ones that you remember are male

>> No.13719881

>>13719739
>women relates

>> No.13719899

>>13719785
like?

>> No.13719911

>women readers reads more of women
what's your first language, op?

>> No.13719971

>>13719739
what the fuck

>> No.13720000

>gender-based objective claim
If you look closer, you'll notice /lit/ takes an issue with female clumsiness when it comes to masculine writing, such as adventure styled plot.
A parallel example would be that women make for great kindergarten nurses, but not so great software engineers. There's nothing wrong witch chick-lit as an isolated market, /lit/ seething is mostly reactionary to feminist yikes trying to place aforementioned clumsiness on secret patriarchy in publisher club to stop women from writing stories compelling for male audiences.

>> No.13720034

>>13719899
>Most women readers reads more of women than men, so a general assertion can be made that women relates to what women writes and men relates to what men writes.

Most women readers READ more of women than men. A general assertion can be made that women RELATE to what women WRITE, and men RELATE to what men WRITE.

>> No.13720036

>>13719689
Come now, you're arguing about gratuitous internet sexism on a lebanese stone-cutting board...

Don't even waste a thought about it

>> No.13720038

>>13720034
I see. the s problems. Minor.

>> No.13720048

>>13719689
>This eliminates any possibility of a gender-based objective claim to be valid.

It doesn't eliminate anything. Have you seen, or better yet, done studies where women read random books without knowing the name/gender or the author, and categorise whom they prefer? And the same for the case of men? No. So it almost proves in a way the opposite: women seem to seek out female authors (it must be the case if they read them significantly more frequently.) That confirms gender bias. And no doubt the same in the case of men and male authors.

>> No.13720105
File: 123 KB, 1252x704, 4get.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13720105

>>13720000
4get, so probably true.

>> No.13720134

>> No.13720179

>>13720134
this desu

>> No.13720183

>>13719739
You don't see any mistakes?
>I personally find the hate against women authors foolish.
That's the only correct sentence.
>Most women readers read[s] more of[by] women than men, so a general assertion can be made that women relate[s] to what women write[s] and men relate[s] to what men write[s]. This eliminates any possibility of a gender-based objective claim to be[being] valid.

>> No.13720651

>>13720183
Those are not errors. If you disagree with the argument or style of writing then that's fine but don't make shit up.

>> No.13720662

>>13720183
Nice bait.

>> No.13720679
File: 84 KB, 461x461, 1565836693874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13720679

>>13719708
fpbp, fucking wrecked

>> No.13720717

>>13720651
>i-it's not wrong, it's just m-my style!

>> No.13720751
File: 64 KB, 1018x785, 1492055689652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13720751

>>13719739
>most women readers reads more of women than men

>> No.13720965

>>13719689
Stop posting cute girls, it's making me sad

>> No.13721103

>>13720651
Did you pass highschool english?

>> No.13721115

Man is overall a superior being, because he is not burdened to carry a chill and raise it, he is the default human, while the female is lacking in some areas to make way for the baby, the purpose of female is to create and support the male.

>> No.13721280

>>13720183
Not even OP but 'to be' is replaceable there as 'being' you retard

>> No.13721316

>>13719739
YE ARE SURELY BLIND

>> No.13721350

>>13721115
>t. supported by mom

>> No.13722123

>>13720651
unhealthy attitude, acknowledge your mistakes and grow from it

>> No.13723241

>>13720651
Are you insane? Of course those are errors: basic, glaring grammatical mistakes. Is English your fourth language? Look at the subject/verb agreements: you have no idea how to handle singular and plural subjects. "Women" is plural, and so is "men." Stop writing "women is" and "men is," please. You're not a child.
>>13721280
No, sorry. It's not as basic an error, but it's still incorrect. He may have meant " claim to be valid" as a nominal phrase, but the way the sentence reads, "to be valid" pairs with "possibility," rather than describing the claim, and "objective" is ambiguous (does he mean it as an adjective describing the type of claim, or is it the noun which "gender-based" modifies as an adjectival phrase?). Given the context, it's much more likely that he meant "This eliminates any possibility of [it] being valid." The sentence needs work.

>> No.13723290

>>13719911
He's speaking enchantment table

>> No.13723439

>>13719689
I was gonna say something but then I remembered that Tom Hardy isn't a woman. Back to the drawing board I guess...