/lit/ - Literature

Pretty damning evidence that female authors are held back by patriarchal society.

Female-led literary renaissance when?

>>10503406
>readability is the only criteria

Almost as if its easier to write clearly when your work isn't as complex

>interesred

The rot has begun to set in I see. Typical male.

>>10503417
lmfao

>>10503417
hahahah

>>10503406
>from equality to superiority in such a short time
Based matriarchy btfo evil patriarchy

>women use more simplistic language therefore they write better papers.
wew

>>10503453
>not writing scientific papers using current year memes
never gonna make it

>>10503406
>It refers to technical papers
Then why are you posting this in a board about literature? Writting a paper has nothing to do with writting fiction.

>>10503414
God bless Google's diversification program for giving that man a job. And he's white! So progressive

>>10503406
Very interesting. Why not blind submissions though?

>caring about the opinions of women

>>10503507
because that would lead to worse results for women

>>10503507
Every single time blinded submissions in STEM disciplines are done, women perform worse than they do normally.
I'm not shitting you, people have repeatedly come out and said that blinded submissions are sexists.

>>10503414
Tbh I like initiatives that bring women into big tech companies cause most guys are faggots who just cause constant drama, and think that working in an office is the same as battling other employees (they actually read sun tzu and try to apply it to being a middle manager and think it's normal). Then they come up with retarded unworkable ideas and try really hard at them because they think they'll "win" if it works, not cause of any business need. At least you can have a conversation with the average woman

>>10503406
That should say
>Women tend to be better at writing than men.
not
>Women tend to write better than men.
which is just an ugly sentence

>>10503406
>women tend to write better than men
holy shit grow tf up

>the appalling amount of leftie Jew slaves on this board will defend this

Disgusting

>>10504046
nothing polemic about women having a higher verbal IQ

Ever notice that it's okay to publish headlines such as "women fitter then men", "women write better than men", "white people more (something bad) than (minority)"?

But it's verboten to even acquire data that may suggest superiority of a trait by white males.

>>10503406
I've been an editor for two different magazines, one female oriented and one male oriented. The average female writer is head and shoulders over the average male, including every idiot in this thread.

But the best writers are men, there are just fewer. And they tend to create more engineered, thought out masterpieces.

Women know how to omit properly. See: >>10504034

>>10504031
This is the most soy post on this board in over 5 years.

I hope you're joking, I really do. Or you're just a woman. Or a fag.

>>10503559
Do you have a source for this?

I'm in research and review papers all the time for journals, but I can't recall ever paying attention if the author is male or female...

>>10504059
Nope, male big tech employee

>>10504058
And whites are better writers and speakers than blacks. What's your point?

>>10504058
This is the worst post I've ever experienced on /lit/.

Off yourself

Just because hundreds of men work construction jobs doesn't mean they wouldn't be as good of writers as the women in offices.

I run a blind submissions literary journal online.

Every single one we accepted last month was from a male author. Women are too clumsy and cannot write poetry for shit. I'm saying this as someone who's seen at least a thousand poems submitted by women.
Usually, women can write a good prose piece, but men still write better. Also, Indians are awful writers.

Women are told they can do anything. But that's really not true...

>>10504059
No I agree with him.

And this is me
>>10504073


The reason why THAT post is kind of ok, is because he is right about that second point. The workplace IS NOT a battlefield. This is a tremendous misconception. He's wrong that less men should be in it, because that's the future we are destined for, as we replace physical labor by machinery. However, it is certainly not a battlefield.

>>10504069
Black spoken rhetoric kicks whitey's ass. Not even meming. Find me your best white spoken rhetoric and I will blow you out.

Point is women are better verbally, on average.

>>10504076
Women are not reliable workers.

The only time women are seen to be constantly reliable are "low"-tier jobs like cooking or being maids. Those are the real hard working women of this world. Not sally of the tech company who brings donuts and sits at a computer taking calls and asking the man next to her how to do something she's expected to know.

>>10504073
It's reality. It just doesn't fit the worldview you constructed from youtube, 4chan, and pua forums. I have experience with this, you have a theory. You sound like someone you'd hate.

>>10504081
Why does this board worship blacks?

I'm beginning to think you're all just brainwashed 15 year olds who surf buzzfeed and have an adopted African child.

I could not foresee the amount of deterioration reddit could bring within a year.

And somehow when something like this is said it's /pol/? Because I don't have white guilt? Is this what you're learning at university today?

>>10503406
>women scientists discover that women in science have an internal celestial body

>>10503406
This is academic writing you stupid nigger, this is not /lit/ go to /sci/ to troll

>>10504074
Poetry is for men to widdle away at, despite never being able to reach the level of Emily Dickinson, no matter how hard they meme.

Worse female coworker I've had: was sort of annoying and obtained a mild advantage at work by proactively making friends with the right people, which is actually a good idea and not really a fault

Most annoying male coworker I've had: talked like donald trump, constantly asked for as much responsibility as possible and went out of his way to make decisions as much as possible. Eventually realized that he didn't have the ability to keep up with his responsibilities and instead of discussing it with the team kept it quiet and began offloading his work to other employees with bizarre backstories about why it was essential that they do it without telling anyone. Hamstrings entire project as 2/3 of developer effort is now dedicated to helping him. Eventually devs realize what is going on and stop. He goes insane and starts drinking 5 cups of espresso a day while trying to do everything himself. His contract ends and the group realizes that his own bizarre underground project was the only thing keeping the main system going and the whole thing is shot for months as we straighten it out

Another male coworker: is an ambitious middle manager. Decides that he is too lazy to write his weekly status report. Wants to "automate" the process of writing a 2 page report weekly. Lies to management and presents a business case of digitizing the group's accounting records and setting up a central system to view and collate data. Hamstrings any effort to develop an actual centralized system (which actually was a pressing business need) because he wants something to write his weekly report for him immediately. Wastes probably $500k in developer salaries and a year of time. The project is a failure and is taken away from him after a year

>>10504097
Shut the fuck up. I know you're trolling but try harder

We have more women submit their shifty poetry about their vaginas and how sad their life is than than we have men submit theirs at all.

>>10504092
It's from studying rhetoric, stupid. Something you haven't done, clearly. You mix charismatic preaching with human and civil rights abuses and you get amazing stuff.

You don't have to be ignorant and racist, you can opt for regular racism.

>>10504103
Sounds like you online poetry zine is terrible. Emily Dickinson still rules American poetry. It's not even a question.

>>10504089
>You sound like someone you'd hate.
I do?

Then I WOULD hate myself? If what? What is the additional criteria?

I literally work around women all day and we have a good time. If you are sitting around thinking to yourself that a specific gender is better at something, you're retarded.

>>10504108
>Ayo nigga I dindu nuffin yo

You're right. These negroid orators are amazing!

What a Pathetic statement. You're probably white too

>>10504081
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

damn....... what amazing eloquence...........

>>10504116
Additional criteria is thinking your reaction through. Your theory doesn't match reality being reported to you. You're sticking with your theory.

Based on your memey reply, I'm assuming you have opinions on egalitarianism, mainly that the theory doesn't match the facts and that people pushing for Everyone
Is the Same and Race Doesn't Real, or whatever, that they should kill themselves.

And reflecting on the post I'm replying to, yeah you don't seem to like yourself :^(

I hate Americans and their constant desire to compete and prove themselves at everything, it's so boring and tiresome.

At least in the old days you went to the moon, invented the internet, orchestrated the Berlin Airlift. Now you waste everybodys time with this shit.

>>10504132
>you went to the moon
German scientists got them there

>invented the internet
Tim Berners-Lee was British

>>10504128
>>10504122
Obviously I don't mean this trash.

Post a youtube link of the best white orator you can think of. You probably won't, since this isn't your territory and are just mad about black people contributing anything to any area.

>>10504130
I love myself, and the women I'm around like me, and the girl I'm interested in likes me. I like myself.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. That's the bottom line. Women are not better at writing than men are. Your justification is how things are, and that's not a justification, that's just deterministic.

>>10504132
Better than sitting on our hands like all of Europe.

>>10504137
>expecting euros to know anything

>>10504137
The internet was a Darpa project for 20 years but you know what I mean.

It's like when liberals talk about the leader of the free world, cold war has been over 25 years, but they still cling to it desperate to prove something.

They have no insight, no imagination, nothing to offer the world of any kind, so they change the criterias for subjective fields and dress it in biological essentialism to prove they have value.

>>10504144
It's actually not, in many cases. Go join a major corporation and you'll realize that most work people do is less valuable than doing nothing, but they do it because their competitive middle manager wants a "win" and starts directing them to do random (usually stupid) shit.

>>10504144
>expecting euros to know anything
this amerifat doesn't even notice my referring to americans as "them"

>>10504143
Maybe you're on levels of irony that I can't perceive... But this is one of the creepier posts I've seen.

The average female can write better than the average male is my point. Worse is that there is good data backing this up, not just my own experience as an editor (and not of an online e-poetry zine). Women on average have higher verbal IQs. So what.

>>10504157
>complains about Americans arguing and wasting time
>euroshit does the same thing

Not that I'd expect anything else from a Eurabian

>>10504160
Oh boy here we go with IQs, a largely behavioral test designed to make people who think or act certain ways feel better about themselves.

This is determinism in action, folks! And here we've got a ripe one. You're in the wrong place, retard.

>>10504154
>>10504157
Can't think, can't write. Break the stereotype, lads. Europe used to be a beautiful place with beautiful minds.

>>10504165
>a largely behavioral test

Nigger what, how is basic spatial reasoning behavioral?

>>10504165
Prediction and measurement isn't determinism. I guess you've been backed into a corner and are trolling.

You know you can just say nothing and no one would notice the backed into the corner thing...

>>10504139
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgZegNgm8N4

this lecture i'm listening to at this very moment is a finer example of eloquence than anything blacks have ever accomplished

>>10504170
Ah but your point was the verbal IQ. If any part of IQ is behavioral or learned behavior, it's definitely that part.

But the whole thing is definitely an invalid way of approaching intelligence. Objectivity in matters of how you think doesn't make sense, and is inherently deterministic

>>10504081
If she took those knickers off would she die?

>>10504186
>and is inherently deterministic

I'm starting to think your issue with verbal IQ is you must score pretty low it

>>10504169
I'm 100% born and raised American. My family has literally been here since before the revolution.

>>10504183
This made me laugh desu. But seriously, you don't have any examples? You know this was a lazy non-attempt.

>>10504190
Of course. But what is actually probably most likely is that I didn't take the test at all, or can't even remember the score from when I did take it.

Thus showing that you're wrong and also dumb at assuming things.

Try not to assume.

>>10504186
>switches ground
I-if we move away from behaviorally observed data AND measured data ma-maybe I can still be right?

NOTHING IS TRUE AND I'M ALWAYS RIGHT

Lmao

>>10504031
you're thinking of nu-males and silicon valley-types, not men

>>10504205
I'm not assuming anything. I'm making an observation you clearly struggle with higher level semantics

>>10504212
And Jews, don't forget the Jews

>>10504186
IQ is a statistic. It doesn't matter what test you are given. All that matters is the ranking. You have a 100 people you give them 100 different test on any subject then you rank them. People that score high tends to score high across domains no matter what subject. People on the bottom stay in the bottom too. The only argument against IQ are domains where there's no clear way to rank people or physical tests. Well even in physical domains, you can't be a retarded and the people at the top have above average IQ.

>>10504191

>>10504031
I disagree with almost everything you wrote, but I will say that I vastly prefer having a female boss over a male boss for many reasons. Mostly because they're nicer in general, less competitive and pushy which is easier on my ego, more forgiving of my aspie tendancies, and if they're MILF's I end up developing a crush on them and work harder to impress them.

>>10504209
Now you're just being butthurt that I'm right.
>>10504214
How so? I have made an assertation that the IQ test is invalid because associated with the philosophy of determinism. You have said nothing to support your test other than the countless lies parroted across the board in support of this test. The very fact that intelligence is trying to be measured objectively shows how far we have fallen. After all, intelligence and the way a person thinks is all subjective, being subject to how much of an individual that person is, and how able he is to exercise his will on reality around him. You have no idea how this intelligence test kills people's souls and helps categorize them into different lines of thought. This might be pretty bad, considering certain schools of thought reinforce and validate the IQ test, among other lines of thought objectifying intelligence, and also Darwinism, the school of thought that a person SHOULD be ranked against others in this way.

You just are helping reinforce an inherently negative system that's all. Me and many others are against this very system of thought.

Also, what is so smart about saying the same thing that everyone else does, retard? Try reading some insightful books into the nature of the spirit or soul. Instead, you fool yourself into thinking 100% of scientific progress and development is correct. And that just has never been the case. Especially for a relatively new theory like evolution.

>>10504225
Lol I like that this has the shanty and lace curtain irish

I really don't want to irationally hate women because I know 90% of women and men are equaily shit but this kind of stuff makes me really mad
>>10503414
God, look at those retarded smug faces

>>10504232
Cowering, shaking his idiocy. It's over, you're wrong.

>>10504236
And you know I'm not.

But here the show is over for you, because whereas I posted something unique, individually satisfying and inherently existential in its scope, you have posted what a scientific journal would say. Again, exactly the problem here.

The sad part is, lord knows if we were in a room with women some of you might not stick to your principles because you wanted to get laid. And that is exactly the problem.

>>10504232
>because associated with the philosophy of determinism.

You're a fucking retard who is oblivious to how much you're misusing terms. The word you're thinking of is essentialism not determinism you stuttering idiot.

>>10504241
Ah, falling back into your endless featherbed of memes. Okay, see yah! Go read about IQ, stupid.

>>10504232
That's naive. The world isn't so nice.
I'll agree that IQ isn't everything but it's still valid in predicting success. You don't need to be 140+ but if you're too low you are fucked. 120 seems to be the sweet spot that says if you work hard you can be successful in whatever field you enter. There's also the autism aspect where individuals can be hyperfocus on one domain. But don't be a retard and say intelligence is not measurable at all. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have a word for it.

>>10504092
hurrr durrr

>>10504249
>The world isn't so nice.
And this is exactly the stupid mentality killing the world.

The world is that nice, and can be that nice as I have proven. Go back to sucking the teat of some meaningless IQ test you took that is becoming more meaningless because I exist and you know who I am.

>>10504247
I would rather not. If you talk to enough people and are on the east coast of America you would know who I was.

>>10504245
Not at all. Read some Kierkegaard.

In reality, it seems most people on here are either just nervous about admitting they know the person this post is coming from even though it is a 'anonymous' imageboard or they are nervous because they are wrong.

Look alive retards, you're wrong and finally someone who can talk to most people can prove it. You are probably assblasted right now sitting in your seat saying that Tyler fucking owned you by showing you that most people around his location agree with his philosophy and mentality towards life.

What is even more, he is around women most of the time these days and you aren't! Yet here you virgins are, on the internet, trying to seem like women are somehow smarter or better at typing than men are, and you're fucking wrong and now the whole world knows that I am the one with the ability making this post. Good day.

Oh yeah and if you want to re-read this post because you can't believe someone actually said this fucking awesome shit I won't blame you.

No, I don't hate myself, I love myself.

>>10504249
IQ seems pretty fucked from what I've seen. That's not to say it's useless (obviously someone with a 90IQ is dumber than someone with a 130IQ) G factor is more objective and unchangeable from person to person, but it seems harder to measure.

I'd disagree that hard work is the main factor in success, at least academically, especially once you get above 130IQ or so. There are plenty of very smart, very hard working people that I've come across that don't achieve anything special since they're hyper-obedient when it comes to following established routes of scientific knowledge. These are the kinds of people who treat string theory or frequentist statistics as objective facts and learn the most advanced equations in those fields like they were the words of God. In science creativity is incredibly important if you want to break ground. That means understanding that scientific paradigms are changeable and non-objective.

>>10504269
Goonan?

>>10504269
I think we just broke this dude

>>10504281
No bud I did say my name in the post if you can read.
>>10504285
A cowards way out. Everyone knows you are a coward.

Also, I am followed around fairly frequently by people trying to converse with me about things of this nature. Please try to keep up.

>>10504293
It reads like Goonan.

>>10504298
You don't say?

Interesting defense and interesting thing to say.

Verrrrry interesting.

>>10504302
It really does, desu.

>>10504302
>>10504269
>reddit spacing

>>10504058
>I've been an editor for two different magazines
no you havent

>>10504272
You're thinking about creativity which is a different measurement. Creativity goes up with IQ up to about 120 and then it stops correlating. This is to be expected because IQ is about finding rigid patterns where creativity is freeform creating your own patterns. Creativity can be trained to a greater extent than I.Q. naturally since it is simply doing whatever has not been done before. For example evolution is highly creative but really fucking stupid.

>>10504189
Youre a big guy ;)

>>10504498
Maybe he didn't but I have and the statement is correct.

>>10504229
tfw no nice forgiving qt milf boss

only men know true suffering. Even if it's not well written book, I'll choose the men's over the women's

>>10503406
I have no problem believing this; women generally read more and have a more developed empathetic system than men do. But I wonder how many of the people citing this would have trouble believing the studies that show that men are better at math and science than women are?

>>10503406

This is literally about writing academic papers, which is hardly literature. Has absolutely no place for discussion in this forum

>>10503406
READ IT YOU FAGGOTS

I use readability scores TO TEST IF WOMEN ARE HELD TO HIGHER STANDARDS IN ACADEMIC
PEER REVIEW. I find: (i) female-authored papers are 1–6 percent better written than
equivalent papers by men; (ii) the gap is almost two times higher in published arti-
cles than in earlier, draft versions of the same papers; (iii) women’s writing gradually
improves but men’s does not—meaning the readability gap grows over authors’ ca-
reers. Within a subjective expected utility framework, I exploit authors’ decisions to
show that TOUGHER EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND/OR BIASED REFEREE ASSIGNMENT ARE UNIQUELY
CONSISTENT WITH THE OBSERVED PATTERN OF CHOICES. A conservative causal estimate de-
rived from the model suggests SENIOR FEMALE ECONOMISTS WRITE AT LEAST 9 PERCENT MORE
CLEARLY THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD. I then document evidence THAT HIGHER STANDARDS
AFFECT BEHAVIOUR AND LOWER PRODUCTIVITY. First, FEMALE-AUTHORED PAPERS TAKE HALF A
YEAR LONGER IN PEER REVIEW. Second, as women update beliefs about referees’ stan-
dards, THEY INCREASINGLY MEET THOSE STANDARDS BEFORE PEER REVIEW. The latter response
disguises external thresholds as personal choice; the former reduces women’s output.
Both whitewash discrimination. More generally, TOUGHER STANDARDS IMPOSE A QUANTI-
TY/QUALITY TRADEOFF THAT CHARACTERISES MANY INSTANCES OF FEMALE OUTPUT. They could re-
solve persistently lower—otherwise unexplained—female productivity in many high-
skill occupations.

She is saying that women write better BECAUSE THEY ARE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN MEN.
TOUGHER EDITORS MEANS BETTER WRITING?!?!? NOOOOOOO SHHHHIIIIITTTT!!!!

>>10504702
there's no need to be upset

>>10504702
Maybe if their work was better then they wouldn't need to write more clearly

>>10504669
>has absolutely no place for discussion
>is posting in the place it is being discussed

>>10504702
>women held to a higher standard than men
How is the clarity of someone's writing defined?
How is clarity synonymous with quality?
How do you objectively determine "good writing" in less objective social science fields?
Does the study select for choice of subject?
How does the fact that papers written by women take half a year longer to peer review automatically suggest that the standards are tougher, rather than the papers (which might be clearly written) have argumentative flaws and unproven hypotheses?
Does this say more about how women are treated unfairly rather than how women themselves take their academic careers more seriously and write loftier papers that take longer to peer review?

Because the notion that women are treated to higher standards is ludicrous to anyone living in the real world. Women are about as productive as teenagers.

>this entire thread

>>10503414
that girl in the high heels has certainly given me some ideas

>>10504807
>How is the clarity of someone's writing defined?
>How is clarity synonymous with quality?
>How do you objectively determine "good writing" in less objective social science fields?
>Does the study select for choice of subject?
Maybe if you read the paper you might find out. I can't tell you because I have not read the whole thing myself.

>How does the fact that papers written by women take half a year longer to peer review automatically suggest that the standards are tougher, rather than the papers (which might be clearly written) have argumentative flaws and unproven hypotheses?
Either female authored papers are systemically better written but contain poor research, or they are held to a higher standard. If the former were true, it would still imply that women were better writers, so I fail to see why you would even argue the point.

>Does this say more about how women are treated unfairly rather than how women themselves take their academic careers more seriously and write loftier papers that take longer to peer review?
So women take their careers more seriously and write more ambitious papers, or they are treated unfairly. Again, the former implies superiority, so why would you ask this if your intent was to discredit female researchers?

>>10503406
any yall niggas actually taking OP seriously..?

>>10505066
Read what's on the projector, sweetie.

> the amount of male tears in this thread

>>10505044
>If the former were true, it would still imply that women were better writers, so I fail to see why you would even argue the point.
The quality of writing isn't determined entirely by style. Something that's stylistically successful but is poorly researched doesn't constitute "good writing" in my eyes. The paper, as far as i'm aware, suggests that it does, which is its major flaw.

>Again, the former implies superiority,
It implies superiority in a very specific domain: the ability to care about one's career. Men can care less and still be better researchers overall. Although I would argue that in the social sciences women are probably academically superior to men.

>>10503406
>Men's writing deteriorates
I recall reading an article not long ago that was claiming not only is the low amount of women in the field of economics a product of discrimination but also that women are better economists because their papers improve in readability where as men's writing becomes less readable. It's obviously very dumb to assume readability = quality. Maybe the men just become more advanced and therefore write less simply and accessibly.

The average women does write better than the average man. Why are you all pissed off?

>>10505116
Because this board is full of virgin beta males who need to compensate their failure at getting laid with mountains of useless knowledge they draw from pretentious books no one cares about.

I mean, c'mon, you CAN'T deny that these virgins are trying to compensate for something

>>10505129
getting laid isn't a failure and you shouldn't judge people for it. it's just caused by mental illness or social issues in most cases unless the guy is religious. it's not really funny unless the guy deserves it cause he's just being a douchebag.

>>10503489
kek

>>10504058
I have no credentials whatsoever but I think this guy might be right.
Women are less retarded than men in general, but also less brilliant. I feel like men and women have the overall same level of competence, but women are much more average while men tend to go more into the extremes.
Think of any fields top experts and it will be men, even in cooking. Also, most women can cook a little while a lot of men can't cook for shit. Same with any field really.

>>10504058
So similar as IQ. Men are more likely to be either low or high IQ, and women to be average.

>>10505129
Almost all effort is a form of compensation. That's like saying "that guy only works out and takes care of his body because he was a virgin incel failure when he was fat"

>>10504232
>After all, intelligence and the way a person thinks is all subjective
Yeah but you can still give an epistemically objective account of an epistemically subjective phenomenon.

>mfw guys are retarded and can't conceive of life or social relations except as a total ordering on the set of humans according to some specific criteria
>mfw guys need jordan peterson to ramble about lobsters and winning "the set of all games" for 20 hours to realize that you can live a balanced life instead of judging yourself by whether you're the best at some random task

>>10505103
>The quality of writing isn't determined entirely by style. Something that's stylistically successful but is poorly researched doesn't constitute "good writing" in my eyes. The paper, as far as i'm aware, suggests that it does, which is its major flaw.
You yourself used the term 'clearly written'. A paper that is 'clearly written' implies as much style as a drawing that has been 'well drawn'.

>It implies superiority in a very specific domain: the ability to care about one's career. Men can care less and still be better researchers overall. Although I would argue that in the social sciences women are probably academically superior to men.
To quote you again, the words 'loftier* papers' implies that they not only care more about their career, but that they also write more ambitious papers. So if they care more about their careers, and write 'loftier papers', I do not think that their superiority would be confined to a 'very specific domain'.

*1.1 Of a noble or elevated nature.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lofty

>>10505297
>You yourself used the term 'clearly written'
"Clarity" is just a single criterion by which to judge something. James Joyce isn't clear. Heidegger isn't clear. It's possible to be obscure or overly-verbose about something, and still be writing something genuinely profound.

>the words 'loftier* papers' implies that they not only care more about their career, but that they also write more ambitious papers.
There's a clear distinction between attempting a goal that's too ambitious for your skill set and failing, and actually reaching goals that are easily obtainable. Someone who does the former isn't necessarily superior to someone who does the latter.

>120 replies
lmao you guys are so insecure it's hilarious

>>10505551
>James Joyce isn't clear
some one doesn't understand art...hehe

>>10503417
BTFO

>>10504111
>Walt Whitman exists

>>10505568
Obviously not me.

>>10505551
>"Clarity" is just a single criterion by which to judge something. James Joyce isn't clear. Heidegger isn't clear. It's possible to be obscure or overly-verbose about something, and still be writing something genuinely profound.
We are talking about writing in research papers, not in novels or in philosophical texts. Clarity of writing is very important in this context.

>There's a clear distinction between attempting a goal that's too ambitious for your skill set and failing, and actually reaching goals that are easily obtainable. Someone who does the former isn't necessarily superior to someone who does the latter.
Ambitious goals always have a higher chance of failure. Easily obtainable goals do not further a field in any significant way.

>>10504269
Holy shit it's GOONAN

>>10503406
>Male """poets"""

>>10505932
Some of the worst poetry I have ever read, probably even worse than Rupi

>>10505709
>We are talking about writing in research papers
The concept still applies. Clarity doesn't trump good research, salient topics, and top notch argumentation.

>Easily obtainable goals do not further a field in any significant way.
That's not true. In some fields minor papers are part of the necessary upkeep that keeps the entire field relevant.

>>10503406
>won’t post on /sci/ because they’ll eat you alive and then scar you with bullying for being stupid
>post on /lit/ because we refuse to bully underages, redditors and women as badly as they deserve and thus idiots will lmfao woah to your faggot slide thread
hey uh how many women have fields medals and how many women have nobel’s from physics and theoretical maths? just wondering

also what percentage of female STEM undergrads go on to Physics and Maths phd’s vs Chem Eng, CS, Bio???? id be interested in that yes i would

>>10505932
I hope this fucker got made fun of for this

>>10505963
>>>/sci/9418923
Kill yourself, brainlet.

>>10505709
>Easily obtainable goals do not further a field in any significant way.
Clearly false.

>>10505709
>The concept still applies. Clarity doesn't trump good research, salient topics, and top notch argumentation.
I would have used the term 'reasoning' in place of 'argumentation', but I more or less agree with this statement. However, I still think you are underestimating the importance of clarity in writing.

>That's not true. In some fields minor papers are part of the necessary upkeep that keeps the entire field relevant.
I suppose it does have a quiet dignity to it, and it's certainly important nonetheless. I would argue though, that more ambitious papers can serve the same function, while having a greater opportunity to advance their field.

>>10506060
I concede. I misspoke.

>>10506172
meant for >>10505961

>>10505932
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZM9hU7By2s/?hl=en&taken-by=collin_andrew_yost

lamo

>>10506172
The thing is, I'm perfectly willing to buy the notion that women are better communicators than men are, but their contribution to academia is usually disproportionately concentrated in the social sciences. The sort of rigorous objectivity required in STEM, psychology, economics, etc. isn't really their thing.

>>10506292
Even in the social sciences they predominantly serve as mundane regurgitators. Rarely contributing anything influential or novel outside the ghetto of feminism

If women are better at writing why does the peak of the Western cannon consist almost exclusively of men?

>>10504183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDWWy4CMhE

White orators btfo.

>>10506309
Again, not me.

>>10506292
Well, thank you for responding to me for so long. I really enjoyed our debate and the opportunity it gave me to improve my rhetorical skills in a low risk environment. Thanks again, and I wish you the best.

>>10503406
>1-6 percent "better"
>6 months more time in peer-review

L
M
A
O

This is actually damning evidence of women's inherent inferiority and the author doesn't even realize it.

>>10504074

Four years in the English department with a "Creative Writing Focus" (great for career opportunities) here, and this mirrors my experience wholly. I had to read and review the work of other students pretty constantly. More than half of the women wrote literally identical stories. "I went out downtown one night, then I ran into this bitch I hate, so I got drunk and kissed a boy and I liked it XDDD" only 10+ pages. Some of the men (who were outnumbered about 2:1 by the women) had poor prose but original concepts, some had excellent prose but dull concepts, some had work that was not my cup of tea but which I appreciated nonetheless as a work in its own right, but none of them wrote "The Female Story".

Of the women, one of the few whom I could actually respect was a fairly effective pair of far-left social justice propaganda pieces masquerading as speculative fiction, written (ironically) by a male-to-female transsexual (though she didn't seem to be on hormones or capable of imitating a male voice, and at 5'4 just looked like a chubby twelve year old boy dressed as a gay man most of the time). Another was a kind of maudlin romantic trapped in the body of a sorority girl, who probably lacked the confidence to go anywhere with her writing. The rest were so dull and empty-headed as not even to warrant personalized mockery.

About 90% of the female writers I read should have been kicked out then and there to save their own time and money, as well as ours. About 10% of the male writers were utterly lacking in potential, the rest displayed some degree of talent and/or skill worth nurturing and improving.

>>10504229

Female bosses go one way or the other: they're either really nice or overly militant. The latter seem to purposefully compensate by following the worst traits in male leadership. I don't know if it's because they're women and that it seems strange for them to do so but it's usually far more problematic. If I go to a shit male boss with a problem 9/10 they'll try to fix it. If I go to a shit female boss with a problem 9/10 they'll hate me for bringing up the issue in the first place.

>>10505932
>Portland, Oregon

>>10505932
This shit's gloriously awful. Read the comments on some of them.

>Ok, cupcake. I looked through some of the people (I assume they are people and not ghost accounts to toss a couple coins into your jar) who appreciated this "poetry" and most of them are people who also have similar "poetry" Instas that are less strikingly bad iterations of neo-beat generation smoke-bags, who had just as strong feelings about women who didn't embrace everything that was gross about them. Let's call this new genre "dead beat", shall we? Anyway, I hope you know that most of your relevance is derived from "bad poetry" or "misogyny" "douchebag" etc. pages on Facebook. My sister, who lives in Maine, laughs with her friends at your poems as if they were an unironic poetic equivalent of The Onion. I live in Portland and it is much the same. To your credit, you've made quite a presence embodying a caricature of everything that is insufferable about men, and particularly men in Portland fucking Oregon. You are a joke on both coasts, and it'd be one thing if you were laughing your way to the bank, but let's be honest here.

>>10506934
The guy is a hack on a level so profound that it's quite awe-inspiring within itself but if a person feels the need to go beyond talking shit about this guy in private or anonymous conversations to personally seeking him out to get inside his head about it in some emotionally vampiric way then they're probably a loser too.

I could laugh about this dude's shit """poetry""" for days but I'd never once feel the need to actually seek him out just to let him know. The kind of people who do this want to be great and secretly think of themselves as already being great yet don't know how to actually execute that in real life so they invest too much time into hating on people around them in bitter resignation. The way they're really reveling in kicking this guy when he's already figuratively down speaks volumes. The guy might be a hack but at least he's staying in his own lane and trying to do something - as haplessly mediocre as it is - in the end I actually prefer guys like him to people like this.

>>10503414
Twelve. Twelve women in that picture and I don't find any of them attractive. This is a first for me.

>>10506910
It's honestly not even surprising at this point. I'm glad that there's at least some order to the chaos.

>>10507037
thanks to the 12 Rules

>>10506995
I have news for you

and it's good or bad depending on whether you want to spend a lifetime stuffing cocks into your ass or not

>>10507533
>ass
arse*

>>10506995
girl in the back with the striped shirt looks like she might be hot

>>10504076
This is the culture of stultification folks. NOT trying to out-do each other.

>>10504031
You're a used up roastie aren't you?

Regardless of race and age, women simply are better with words. That is a well-established scientific and cultural fact, no amount of crying and yelling will change it. The primary audience for literature is women, too. Just accept that your hobby is very female-dominated and in the modern times women continue flooding in. This isn't going to change anytime soon.

Yes, we're still GUYS who READ BOOKS. There's no need to draw attention to it, you'll look like a clown if you do. Quit blabbering over gender, absolutely no one cares.

>>10504031

Agreed. An all-male work environment is idiotic, overly competitive over puerile bullshit, and I prefer female presence. The milf thing and working harder, though... meh. Any corporate work, really any work that is for my subsistence, will not inspire me. It's more bearable, but I only get inspiration on my own ideas/time.

I wouldn't be surprised that women are generally better than men at writing, because women generally spend more time socializing with people.
Think about all the professions that are generally deemed 'female' jobs.
Teachers, nurses, secretaries, real estate broker, and social work. Each of these jobs require that one be good at both understanding and communicating ideas effectively.
Women are simply better at communication, and writing is no exception.

>>10506311
Patriarchy and institutionalized misogyny.

>>10503406
Its possible.

Women gravitate towards the mean: there are more male geniuses for a reason. Ergo, I wouldn't be surprised if there's plenty of competent female writers just as I wouldn't be surprised if there are virtually no great ones.

>>10509268
>women are simply better at communication
t. never had a gf