/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14572603]

Why don’t women understand poetry? They degrade it by their contribution. It’s absurd that the likes of Rupi Kaur are revered as great poets.

[Anonymous No.14572611]

>>14572603
>No smoking!
nothing wrong with this assertion

[Anonymous No.14572618]

>>14572603
Rupi Kaur wont be remembered after she has died.
Time is a filter.

[Anonymous No.14572620]

>>14572611
smoking tobacco is perfectly acceptable for a man.

[Anonymous No.14572623]

>>14572603
baseless claim, or do you really think you can extrapolate over 3 billion people from one author? saged and have sex

[Anonymous No.14572654]

>>14572603
>They degrade it by their contribution

Sappho, Dickinson, Emily Bronte and Plath are all better poets than most.

[Anonymous No.14572846]

>>14572603
> mfw these fuckers made rape victims laughable with this fucking campaign. not the idea, but the sheer way it was executed
holy fuck. lefties are driving nails into their own coffins, and harming normal people in the process

[Anonymous No.14572858]

>>14572654
i feel like only tender love for a woman can produce truly good, touching romantic poetry. that's why bi or lesbian women can do it, while straight stacies just can't. gays are great at prose but the poetry is midwit.

[Anonymous No.14572907]

>>14572858
lesbianism and bisexuality don't exist. Woman find it less abhorrent than straight men because woman are inherently passionless.

[Anonymous No.14572915]

>>14572907
seethe. you say it because no woman has shown passion towards (You).

[Anonymous No.14572923]

>>14572620
Not if you look like a child who stole his parents cigarettes. Men shouldn't be smoking until their 30s-50s based on how childlike they look.

[Anonymous No.14572936]

>>14572858
This post is kind of true, desu,

[Anonymous No.14572947]

>>14572915
Love is an exclusively male phenomenon. Woman simply do not experience it on the same visceral level. They have no concept of agape, or even sincere eros, love for them is largely an affair of signaling social capital, hence they are never expected to love, but merely to submit, and find their identity through their husband and lord, just as the moonlight is reliant on the sun.

You can even see this from them as children, the boys have "crushes" on a diversity of girls, the girls all on a single boy, many of which only deciding they do once they learn the other girls like him.

[Anonymous No.14572959]

>>14572907
cope

[Anonymous No.14572965]

>>14572947
sorry anon i didnt see this one before i posted >>14572959 but again: cope

[Anonymous No.14572980]

>>14572965

[Anonymous No.14572982]

>>14572618
truth

[Anonymous No.14572985]

>>14572959
>>14572965
>when females try to use memes
>exposing themselves not understanding them

[Anonymous No.14572999]

>>14572947
Of all the red pill stuff i just don't get that. It just sounds too damn edgy to be true.

[Anonymous No.14573008]

>>14572947
Love is neither male nor female, but among humans only the male has direct access to it. Women are like corporate CEOs and men are like artists on this front.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkKNWE1n8Ac

[Anonymous No.14573027]

>>14572999
Woman's place is too be loved and to submit. The whole purpose of the feminine it so get mogged by the masculine (or let the masculine be masculine) the issue is just that the roles of what a male female relationship is expected to be in modernity are perverted by a general egalitarianism.

Alas, mutual love of the soul is relegated to be between a man and God. You can still have souls resonate with each other for Philla (like that of the ritual of making "blood brothers) but eros with never be reciprocated (homosexual affairs are too narcissistic and histrionic to be sincere in their lust for eachother)

[Anonymous No.14573058]

>>14573008
>animals can totally love when you anthropomorphize them and view their acts of "love" materialistically.