/lit/ - Literature

>>19406709
Ironic coming from a papist.

>>19378000
Get off this porn site

>>>/mu/

Creepy

>>12603315
>Author wants to be addressed with They/Them pronouns
Stopped reading

I'm not misogynistic, just ... disappointed I guess. Seeing the condition of women really saddens me, there is so much unmet potential lying in their sex, waiting for them to unlock it. And they have to lock it for themselves, that's the key, for themselves. De Beauvoir was correct in calling women the "second sex", as long as women are entirely defined by their relation to men and to society at large, they will never be free of their particular pathologies and problems. I don't think it will ever happen though, or at least not in my immediate descendants lifetimes. As long as things like pregnancy and childbirth are still things, women will always be necessarily derivative and objectified. Shit, I'm not even a feminist and I'm talking like them. They were right, but not in the ways that most of their followers understood them. Women need to learn how to free themselves from their own bodies before they free themselves from "the patriarchy"

Hey /lit/, I'm interested to find out if there's any good books on the topic of the interplay between Protestantism and the rise of "the State" / nation-states / secular authority?

It's not something I've ever really thought about but for some reason now I'm curious

>>12516506
First question - why do you want gnosis?

>>12192244
Why do people feel the need to compile "reading lists?" What do you get if you read 100% of every book in a single list, and nothing else? Do you get a cookie? Do you become an enlightened sage?

Why are there "essentials?" What happens if you don't read an "essential?" Do you become a pseud and fall into poverty and hardship? What happens if you read a book not considered "essential" but it impacts your life and worldview far more profoundly than any of the "essentials" you read?

Why are people dishonest with their motivations?