/lit/ - Literature

>>21512677
>Have you considered the possibility that you are simply imagining things and jumping to your own conclusions.
Also mostly in jest, but the real problem with women (in literature especially) is their lack of abstract thinking. When I started on my literary journey I didn't have sexist expectations that women were shit authors, I just happened to realize one day that there was only one single book in my folder of garbage books that was written by a man, and only one good one written by a woman.
If I had to critically analyze the reason, I'd say it's because women tend to write about, and I think you'll agree, very basic emotional stories. Their works don't really have to do with abstract ideals of crime, justice, love, or spirituality, but the concrete and immediate "feel" of it. They are perpetually stuck in the feeling of everything and they aren't able to escape. When a man reads a woman's work he sees emotional blubbering and sensuousness but no higher meaning. Some men strain so hard to see something deeper that they hallucinate higher ideals- as in Pride and Prejudice, where the story is quite literally a master-quality romance novel but with no deeper meanings than the ones that men attach and women are forced to during college.
This could be because of societal conditioning or it could not. I'd reckon that it has to do with both the nurture and nature side. Women are more emotional and aren't as capable of casting aside the immediacy of their feelings to see the "higher meaning" behind things. When men write about feelings and emotions, it tends to be in highly abstract terms. Women tend not to like this; I've heard lots of women say "Blah blah well men always write about politics politics politics so fucking boring." They don't understand that those abstract ideas like "politics" and "philosophy" carry intense emotional baggage for men, the same way a woman views a paragraph on daddies huge hairy arms to be intensely emotional Even Ayn Rand, someone I should theoretically like based on trivial political similarities, can't help to make her works expressly about the emotional side of an issue rather than the abstract.
I don't mean to be blindly sexist. I don't think women are less intellectual or less intelligent; A lot of women that I've met are extremely intelligent, many much smarter than myself. The problem is that they CANNOT escape the biological hard-wiring that ENTRAPS them in the immediate, corporeal and sensual experience rather than the ideal and abstract.

Now examine women's "literature" and see it for what it is: Daddy fetishism. Pride and Prejudice? Taken by the Gyppo Bull. Gone with the Wind? Taken by the Irish Bull. Ayn Rand? Taken by the Anglo Bull. Think about all of your women authors and realize the truth. Bronte, Christie, Plath. Women just can't.

>>21391731
I know you're making a joke, but that's not really the meaning of the word intuit, nor is something that feels good for you at a given time an intuition of what is right. If you really don't understand then you may not be a conscious entity.

>>21366485
Based absolute fucking retard