/lit/ - Literature

>>11570667
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDickem??!!!


Yes

>>11570667
What's wrong is you make shit threads for flame-baiting nu-boy basedtoy bugmen feminist and r9k basement wanking virgins.

>>11570667
I don't write but I suffer from the same phenomenon that you do

>>11570677
OP here. I know how it looks. I swear I am not trying to bait anyone and this is an actual problem. Please help me out, anon. I am not even looking for the typical >le women are evil responses.

How can you hate women and not write convincing female characters?

It's usually when we put too much of the masculine intellect into the female characters when they become unrealistic.

Stop putting them on a pedestal and you should be able to create realistic female characters.

If it doesn't stem from wanting to nurture a child or rape fantasies than you're likely lacking in understanding of the female psyche.

post an actual example of your writing so we know this question is in good faith

>>11570667
You've become a resentful cuck. Do your research and learn the canon. Either become someone you'd want to listen to, or write some great thot hate fics

>>11570684
I know you are baiting with the last part of your post, but this is kind of my problem.

I always wrote female characters as guys first and then changed their sex until I realized that this was not a good way to go about it at all. I knew there was something I just couldn't quite grasp and in looking for it I somehow, at some point, turned misogynistic.

>>11570685
I posted something on a critique thread once that I gotta find now, but I am terribly ashamed of my writing, anon. Can't you just take my question at face value? I can still post it if it is really necessary, though.

Read some female authors

>>11570695
What do you hate about females? They're not much different than guys up to a point, they just have some different values, usually.

>>11570724
Thanks for asking. I will try to enumerate a few things. They probably won't be clear as I want them to be, but I will try.

1) Purposeful lack of self-awareness. It seems that women will try to justify their actions to such an extent that they will lie to themselves. For example, let's say you are in a tricky enough situation to the point where you have to decide between the lesser of two evils, whatever they may be. It seems as though men will, in general, be more willing to take the burden of being "the villain", being aware of their decisions, while women will create elaborate excuses to not lose hold of their moral superiority. It reminds me of Rashomon - there is a scene where one of the characters says that "women can even fool themselves with their tears."

2) More egotism than normal. This seems to manifest itself in a "preaching to the choir" attitude, where I've seen women say something as if it were rebellious and revolutionary, even though they are only being brave in front of a group which will not reject them. A good example of this would be an article I just read today on the NYT, (though maybe I should not be reading their gender and society section to be quite honest): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/opinion/sunday/dating-women-matriarchy-single-moms.html

3) Forcing certain roles on men. From what I have seen, women will want you to be either the villain, the lover, the father or the one to be protected. If you are the villain, then you are, let's say, something like "the patriarchy", something evil whose actions cannot be justified ever. Then, if you are the lover, you are the socially savvy person who can, really, manipulate their emotions - which doesn't mean the guy is bad, but that person is certainly tiptoeing around morality in a way, and somehow this is positive (?). If you are the father, you will be tested, indirectly, to make sure you are fit to your role, in outlandish ways. Can you be a protector? Hints will be thrown and you must catch onto them. If you are the one to be protected, then you are only an object for women to inspire confidence in themselves while fulfilling maternal desires in a twisted way.

What I always asked myself is whether I am projecting bad aspects of humanity onto a single gender, but more and more it seems like that isn't the case. Regardless, please feel free to refute me, anons.

>>11570798
And to add to my post, I should say that I am not talking about women in the traditional /r9k/ way of "attractive women around my age." I do mean to talk about women of all ages, regardless of what they look like and whether I want anything to do with them sexually.

Hating women makes it easy to write realistic female characters. Seeing them for the child-like irrational apes they are. Most people don't want to read about realistic female characters. People generally want to read about fantastical characters in some regard or another, either gender. Write fantastical female characters.

If your goal is to write female characters that your audience likes, hilariously enough this is probably the niche case where anime becomes useful to a writer. Does everyone like Sakura-chan? Yes, of course. Does any girl like Sakura-chan exist? Fuck no.

>>11570724
>They're not much different than guys up to a point
Naive, completely ignorant of society and the entire history of the human race, willfully or otherwise.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/fow/fow15.htm

>>11570716
The only female author I've ever enjoyed is Pearl S Buck. I've read and felt neutral/disgust towards Ursula K Le Guin, Sue Sumii, and Ayn Rand. Are there other good ones out there?

>>11570798
decently redpilled desu

>>11570798
You're on the fence too much on this topic. Tip: Almost everything people of pre-modern times have said about women is completely true, and no group of people have been so delusional as to what women are as the contemporary west.

>>11570667
Unironivcally read some Schopenhauer.

>>11570825
Read Henry James, not that middlebrow garbage you listed ffs.

>>11570820
>watches anime
>calls others the child-like irrational apes
Don't listen to this person unless you want to write neckbeard fantasies.

>>11570843
Henry James isn't a woman.
>Hating on Babylonian roof-thatching on a Babylonian roof-thatching forum
Wrong website. Also, women, children, and neckbeards are the only people who buy books these days, so unless you identify with the starving author you better start finding out what neckbeards like.

>>11570798
Well. I think what this guy >>11570820
said is partially true. Write a fantastical version of women, if that makes you more comfortable. Most women are shitty, and most men are shitty, and being likable is an exceptional trait that just proves the rule.

That's the only thing from him you should take as advice, though. Anyone who reacts to a comment with something like this:

>Naive, completely ignorant of society and the entire history of the human race, willfully or otherwise.

Is usually unhinged and doesn't get outside much. :(

>>11570820
OP here again (posting from another device, so that's why the new IP.)

I like how you mentioned anime. As strange as it is, it illustrates my point in a pretty neat way - every time I watched anime, I could empathise with the female characters in a deep way. However, if I were to watch any European "female character study tour-de-force", I didn't get it. That's about the time I realized: all those cute 2D girls are just guys role-playing females. Of course, that might seem obvious because guys are running the show. But here's the thing, I want my writing to have a level of truth to it, so I don't want to just copy what anime does, because on an artistic level, that's not what I want to create. And this is a shit feeling because if I were to follow what anime does, it would feel much better but it would betray what I want to accomplish.

Now I find myself at a crossroads: do I change my whole approach to writing in order to create interesting worlds or do I accept something ugly and resort to imbuing a nihilism into my writing I wanted to avoid just so it can be true?

>>11570798
This is just my opinion but I hope it rebutes what you think enough to change your mind.

1. I think that this is true, especially for younger women. Contemporary expectations of women lead to them not always being encouraged to find their own footing, or reach their potential, because of the subconscious idea that they are allowed to "cop out" by getting married or whatever - this is less of a concession than it may seem, actually. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to re-word basic feminist thought but I hope you can at least understand that the cultural undercurrent, for women, for basically ever, has been that they are expected to be vapid or void of responsibility because they are just an accessory to their sexual counterpart. Some young women tend to internalise this role, and end up becoming the person you describe. It doesn't excuse the behaviour for those women personally, but for those women, its symptomatic of an internalisation of cultural expectations and perhaps a lack of critical thinking that blends to form that. A lack of critical thinking isn't an indictment of women themselves, because almost everyone lacks this. These expectations on women have gotten much better for the people alive who are currently children, but you'd be surprised how much it would have affected the development of people who are adults.

2. I think, honestly, it's just liberal feminist bullshit. In addition to that most women have felt their opinions were undervalued in the past and I guess are taking advantage of the fact that they are respected more now.
But frankly people like that just make my blood boil.

3. This is also true, but this is honestly just symptomatic of the rigid gender expectations I described above. I don't think it's good, but in fairness, it's a hand that both genders have been dealt with. If you feel hating women is justified for their perpetuation of it, then I guess one should hate men for their hand in its perpetuation as well.

I'm college-age and also quite disillusioned with girls my age as well, minus the liberal bullshit I mostly just feel sorry for them, because they're purposefully stunting their own life by choosing to behave in ways that make them have less humanity, in my perspective at least. I'm also a lesbian and became a pretty bad misogynist for essentially the same reasons you described. I outgrew that though, the real thing that changed for me was realising that hatred wasn't productive for me, I made platonic friends with thoughtful women and began to feel positively about them.

>>11570825
Mary Shelley is a good writer in all honesty. I like Virginia Woolf but I don't think it has a lot of appeal to men.

>>11570869
Read some popular books with female protags and see what works. Or read good novels written by females, either or. By god, don't take hints from Anime as a writer, it's a completely different medium and it has been sharpened specifically to appeal to people in your demographic.

>>11570865
I've worked at hostels in different countries, hitchhiked for years, lived and worked in many places, have had in-depth conversations with four digits of people of both genders. I could teach a year long set of semester-length courses on impromptu socializing. I'll forgive you this time but next time it's the spankies.

>>11570870
Not OP, but I agree with what you said. Don't you think women are held to an unfair standard currently? Where on one end, they're expected to be independent and filled with responsibility, where on the other, they're expected to be modest and willing to settle down for a man (which is the kind of traditionalism usually vouched for here.) Don't you think that, currently, no matter what women do, they'll be hated by the shut ins here for the mere fact they'll be unattainable to them either way?

>>11570875
Give me the spankies daddy because not only do I not believe you I also think you're going to be answering to god on why you thought lying on the internet was a good idea

>>11570851
Henry James is all you need to learn how to write characters.
>OMGZ MUH ANIMU WEBSITE HOW DARE YOU NOT LIKE ANIMU
get nae naed you pathetic weeb manchild

>>11570869
CLAMP characters are some of the best in the medium and they're written by women. I tend to model my female characters on characters from their series, though my approach to males is much more dynamic. I'll make a thread when one of my books finally gets accepted to let you know that it finally worked.

As for your question, depends on the genre and who you are trying to appeal to. That being said, you can get away with fantastical builds in both a fantastical adventure setting and an edgy mysterious soap opera novel.

THE WATER IS TURNING THE FROGS GAY

>>11570889
>CLAMP characters
OP don't do it you have friends and family who love you

>>11570886
Can't imagine what situation you're living in to find unbelievable a thing so benign as hitchhiking or working at hostels. Especially considering the associative theme. Can't hold down a job enough to maintain a living on tickets.

>>11570887
Maybe if you're writing character-driven fiction. Some people are more into swords and lasers.

>>11570875
>in-depth conversations with four digits of people of both genders
t.

>>11570870
Thank you for the thoughtful response, I appreciate it. I am going to bed now, but if the thread is still up tomorrow I will give a proper reply to your post.

And many thanks to the anons who gave me tips on writing characters especially, as this is the main thing I hoped to achieve with this thread.

>>11570887
I will be sure to read Henry James closely.

>>11570903
You're immediately standoffish and the opposite of charming. Not to mention your dislike of women is quintessential of the modern day shut in. You sir are a basement dwelling ball licker, and if you want me to think otherwise you can screen shot your stamped passport faggotron.

>Maybe if you're writing character-driven fiction. Some people are more into swords and lasers.

OP, keep in mind that all fiction is character driven, the secret is interweaving swords and lasers into that story. That's how you get the good shit.

>>11570882
I agree, there's a lot of mixed messages.
Like, "girl power", or whatever, is very trendy with almost everyone my age (look at the women's section of h&m lol), but there's seems to be a fear of critically realising just what put them in the state that makes them need "girl power" in the first place - therefore the average woman is stuck in this limbo of half-heartedly liking the rewards of feminism but not really wanting to have to address it, in its purest form, because of the implications that historical feminism has for modern culture.
Honestly the misogynist pathology on this website is very sad to me, I don't think any woman actually gets upset by men getting at their goat for daring to mention their gender here, they're just making themselves angry. It feels sanctimonious to say it like that, but until they are able to recognise women as people, they won't get social satisfaction from them, because they're sub-human. Hating anyone poisons your own capacity for happiness.

>>11570909
Look at it this way. In a single year of hitchhiking I'm probably climbing into 2.5 cars a day on average. You think I kept my mouth shut when doing that? People get pretty personal with you when they know they're never going to see you again, too. Talk about some crazy shit.

>>11570917
Don't you think that it's sad that modern feminism doesn't realize and embrace the virtues that females uniquely possess? I sometimes feel like there's a big push to make women more like men, in an attempt to have them occupy the same spaces as men, when they could easily occupy other spaces to greater efficiency. It's almost like tomboy is the ideal, as opposed to ubermensch lady. I'm not saying that their past or current role is indicative of that, but I feel like the current trend isn't pushing them to their potential either, or if it is, it's because of something ancillary.

>>11570920
A fantasist too. They should put you in a zoo because you're so common a neckbeard.

>>11570915
You think I'm here to charm you? I'm not climbing into your car or sharing a common room with you. I'm here to lift the humble and squash the pretentious.

Character-driven fiction, as opposed to setting-driven, concept-driven, plot-driven, etc. simply refers to the main focus of entertainment being derived from your novel. Henry James writes character-driven fiction. J.R.R. Tolkien writes setting-driven fiction. PKD writes concept-driven fiction. Characters are hardly worth a shit in the latter yet he's sold millions.

>>11570938
I do think you're here to charm me. That's why you're trying to spin up a ruse and make tepid quips.

>Character-driven fiction, as opposed to setting-driven, concept-driven, plot-driven, etc. simply refers to the main focus of entertainment being derived from your novel. Henry James writes character-driven fiction. J.R.R. Tolkien writes setting-driven fiction. PKD writes concept-driven fiction. Characters are hardly worth a shit in the latter yet he's sold millions.

I can agree with that. Anime is still a piss poor source to drawn inspiration from though.

>>11570923
This is a sometimes dubious statement but it goes both ways; as long as manhood is seen as the default, women will be appraised with that metric. Men and women definitely are different, but the latter should not have to resemble the former to be respectable. It would be nice if womanhood wasn't inherently a political statement, but instead, a valued counterpart to manhood. I wonder how much of it has to do with the obsession with productivity and work being the assessment of human value, too, since women haven't been present in the workforce like men have been.

>>11570946
Not if you're trying to write appealing female characters. That's the iron core of the medium, the financial engine. There is no other medium of fiction where this is true.

>>11570947
Womanhood held such values in many pre-modern societies. There is much conspiracy theory talk on the dissolving of such ideas through media to bring women into the workforce to increase GDP. Seems to have some side effects if true.

>>11570947
I haven't thought about the latter part before. I think that makes sense though. We live in a man's age, and maybe natural equilibrium will only really exist if we ever go back to a hunter gatherer society. In a post work world, I feel as though men would be devalued, and the scale would tip the other way.

>>11570953
No, anime writes female characters to appeal to a certain kind of man, particular japanese men and american shut ins, who idolize loyalty and demure behavior. The whole basis for a likable female character is bunk anyways, you can make any character likable with the write words. HOWEVER, OP stressed wanting realism as well, and Anime girls are not a realistic portrayal of women at all. Or, arguably even a likable one, but that's just my opinion, your waifu is shit etc.

>>11570959
>we live in a man's age
Never before in the history of the western world have we lived in less of a "man's age". Women work trades, vote, and in some countries lead.

Don't you have any female friends?

>>11570702
Quit being a bitch and post it

>>11570974
Only a shounen appeals to such people. Shoujo is one of the largest demographics in the medium and usually holds the opposite of your description of the typical character. Shoujo is also where I consistently find compelling female characters in fiction, and I don't typically find them in literature or film.

>>11570975
Just because women are able to do these things now, doesn't mean it's their "age". Yes, things are better, but in other civilisations women were doing those things. I'd say it's just becoming slightly less man's age than it has been for centuries in the west.

>>11570989
"Man's age" is something relative. Compared to the previous woman's age we are coming out of? No. It's almost impossible to consider today a "man's age" on any spectrum of relativity, particularly after coming out of 5000 years + of male-driven war and invention.

>>11570986
I still think you're a liar and I'm opposed on principle, however I'm also interested in examples because I'm sure it must be true sometimes.

>>11570993
Rayearth, Princess Tutu, Precure(Heartcatch is a good start), Utena, Versailles no Bara, Doremi is a nice bundle.

>>11570992
Previous woman's age? What age is that? Men have and will continue to dominate. Just because you're not one of the ones on top doesn't make it any less a man's age.

>>11571006
Relative spectrum. "The west has never been in any more of a woman's age is now" is an absolutely true statement. I would even argue with the way democracy has sprung forth in the west that it is in fact a woman's age in general, as they are a major acting political body and consumer base.

>>11570992
>>11571021
I don't think you're correct and I think your evaluations are fairly arbitrary. I don't feel this is a discussion worth engaging with.
Groups that are, historically, so powerful they have been considered the "default" feel they are being displaced if their counterpart has a moment, even if it's insignificant or superficial.

>>11571021
Being a major political body and consumer base does not an age make. Men still rule politics and still very much dominate culture.

I have the opposite 'problem'. All the women I write in to my writings are idealised beautiful pure waifu types.

>>11570798
>>11570834
based, you can't rope-a-dope the Schope

>>11571025
My argument of relativity is objective. My statement on the mass of women as a voting body and consumer base is equally objective. Never before in the history of the world have their been so many women leaders, we even had a female presidential candidate recently in the US who won popular vote. I suspect you have some kind of strange victim or victim-empathy bias to push against this reality.

>>11571032
Sure, and they always will. However, my problem is saying "we live in a man's age" holds the direct implication that we have previously at some point not lived in a "man's age", or else the word "age" loses it's meaning in the statement. Because of this, I've pointed out that we are in the least of a "man's age" that we've ever been at any point in history on an objective level.

>>11571042
Right, I don't challenge you on your assertion that it is a much better place to be a female politician at the moment.
But this doesn't change the deeply rooted cultural misogyny. This doesn't mean that manhood is not being treated as the default. It doesn't mean that women are automatically more privileged than men are. Therefore it is still a man's age.
Also ---'s age is such a subjective and stupid category. Therefore your argument is not objective.

>>11571053
On any tangibly demonstratable level, women are literally more privileged than men are today due to the social services system, affirmative action, and judicial policy. You're also naive if you think men are valued more across the socio-political spectrum than women. "Women and children first".

>Therefore, it's still a man's age
>---'s age is subjective and stupid
Why are you contradicting yourself? I don't get it. And no, I specified "relative spectrum" precisely because that pushes my argument into objectivity.

>>11571069
You genuinely believe that men are the more oppressed sex than women? I'm asking seriously.

Also yes, I did contradict myself. I should say, "if anything, it's still a man's age."

>>11571074
>You genuinely believe that men are the more oppressed sex than women? I'm asking seriously.
How are they not? Women (in the western world) have it better than any group of people have ever had in the history of mankind.

>>11571074
I stated factually that on any tangible level, women are more privileged than men due to policy that literally gives them more privileges in society than are given freely to men. And if you want to speak on what is untangible, I would argue that the gender that is pursued is upon a higher pedestal than the gender that pursues, "women and children first" is literally an age-old example of unwritten female privilege.

>it's still a man's age
Compared to what previous non-man's age?

>>11571074
The idea that women are oppressed is only given merit ironically to make women happy despite being absurd, and it's given an enormous amount of media coverage. That's the level of privilege women are on right now.

>>11570667
Read Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. It is a surprisingly great book (though a little dry at times), and it'll give you some insight into the mindset of a group of women. Though you could stick with the hatred thing and come up with some interesting female villians. Either way, Godspeed senpai.

>>11571087
>>11571088
Yeah I'm sorry I'm not going to engage with this, we are on too distant wavelengths and I'm not going to victimise myself and detail all of the culturally oppressive things that women are affected by. If you genuinely want to be challenged, I suggest you read the book "The Second Sex" with an open mind.

However, to (merely) name a few:
- Domestic violence
- Aesthetic scrutinisation and ridiculous beauty/bodily standards
- Reproductive rights
- Sex trafficking, which still happens, and doesn't go away because of affirmative action or whatever
- Rates of sexual assault
- Politics is still male-dominated even if political discourse centres around women (which isn't proof of female privilege in of itself, it's only attempting to undo the burden women have, historically, been forced to bear)
And that's only in the West.

Just because women are granted several political concessions to make up for their past treatment it doesn't mean the average woman necessarily has it better than the average male.

>>11570667
write about a dystopian scenario in which all women are for whatever the reason dead

>>11571120
LISA the painful?

>>11571110
>If you genuinely want to be challenged
Because you are unable to challenge me? You insult yourself.

>domestic violence
Men are vastly the majority of victims of violence in the world, which is why you specify "domestic". Weak. War is fought by men.

>Aesthetic scrutinisation and ridiculous beauty/bodily standards
This is not gender specific whatsoever. Silly.

>Reproductive rights
What does this even mean? Takes two to tango.

>Rates of sexual assault
Once again you put [adjective] before [noun] because [noun] happens WAY more to men. Jesus christ, denial.

>political discourse centres around women
You said it yourself.

Literally the only thing you didn't BTFO yourself on is sex trafficking, and that applies to what 0.001% of women? You're religious.

>>11571110
>>11571131
i gotta say the misogyny guy is coming across as more reasonable here and i'm sort of in the middle on this question

>>11570975
Came here to post this. Literally every statistic comparing the relative success of men and woman that is thrown out in arguments spells this out, other, maybe, than earning potential, and that is largely depending on the cultural state of 30-40 years ago, and to a lesser degree is based on the work that women (still) seem more personally inclined to do.

>>11570695
>I always wrote female characters as guys first and then changed their sex
Damn, I just realized I have done the same, for convenience.
But she is a person...do I have to go into the mindset that when I conceive of a character she must be a woman before anything? She's strong enough and not some Mary Sue, so I don't see the problem. I don't find her too different than some women I actually know.

>>11571110
>Yeah I'm sorry I'm not going to engage with this
>If you genuinely want to be challenged
Sad irony

>>11571131
I mean but in that case wouldn't, historically, it have always been the women's age?

>>11571110
de beauvoir was a sexual predator

>>11571110
>Domestic violence
Women beat men more.
>Aesthetic scrutinisation and ridiculous beauty/bodily standards
Ripped men everywhere don't have an effect on the average man?
>Reproductive rights
A woman gets pregnant and she has full control, if a man doesn't want the pregnancy it doesn't matter. Women have full control.
>Sex trafficking, which still happens, and doesn't go away because of affirmative action or whatever
Sure, but those women are usually taken from shithole countries, not the rich western ones.
>Rates of sexual assault
Oh gee, the one thing women have that men really want? Who would have thought! Even so, it's much better today than what it once was.
>Politics is still male-dominated
Because politics is inherently about men and what they want. Whole world's like that, sweetheart.

>Just because women are granted several political concessions to make up for their past treatment it doesn't mean the average woman necessarily has it better than the average male.
Oh they do. They get more than they give (in terms of taxes etc.), less pressure in terms of finding out what they have to do in life (becoming mothers), sexual market place is completely open to women and they're free to fuck as many attractive guys they want, rights in terms of parenting, help in general but especially for mental issues is easier and more accepted (because of being seen as vulnerable etc.).
So sorry, sweetie, they have it easier!

>>11571192
>sexual market place is completely open to women and they're free to fuck as many attractive guys they want
I agree with you on most, but not this one.
The average woman isn't that attractive and most women are only attractive for a short period of their lives.

>>11571204
>The average woman isn't that attractive
Do you know what average means? You know the numbers, 80% women go for 20% of men. Even if a chick is like a 4-6/10 there's still plenty of guys who's willing to fuck her pusy.
>and most women are only attractive for a short period of their lives
Yeah and they can spend time that fucking around.

>>11571211
>Even if a chick is like a 4-6/10 there's still plenty of guys who's willing to fuck her pusy.
Yes, if she pretty much literally whores herself out she can get fucked by desperate men, but not by chad and he won't be her boyfriend. And whoring comes at a reputation cost too high for most people (yes even now in our supposedly degenerate societies).

>>11571225
>Yes, if she pretty much literally whores herself out she can get fucked by desperate men, but not by chad and he won't be her boyfriend
That still doesn't change my point about sexual market place.

>And whoring comes at a reputation cost too high for most people (yes even now in our supposedly degenerate societies).
Maybe if you truly go all out, but in general party and hook-up culture and all that is pretty normal.

OP here again, gonna bump the thread before I give the thorough replies I want to.

Unfortunately, the arguments on the thread showed something else I really dislike about the gender conversation: the need to see which gender is the most victimized - when women are being defended in this type of conversation, it only turns into arguments that must first and foremost establish the "innocence" of women, which goes back to my first point. Then come the snide remarks which are often particular to women in their own indirectness - these remarks, I suppose, stem from the idea of social justice, which for me is just social revenge, the idea about talking over and over about things done in the past and the necessity of reparations. If your wife or husband always held your mistakes over your head, even when you tried hard to become a better person, wouldn't you say they are abusive?

Anyways, what I meant only as a bump has already become quite long. I am saddened by this type of discussion and though I am self-aware of it, it fuels my unfortunate misogyny. I wish that we can try our best to discuss gender without resorting so much to U.S. specific paradigms, and even if we do, that we have the decency to rephrase them so as to try out best to not use cliched arguments that get lost in all the buzzwords

>>11570684
>It's usually when we put too much of the masculine intellect into the female characters when they become unrealistic.

Not OP here: in line with this logic, would you say that writing about intelligent women and achieving polyphony by juxtaposition of their voices with voices of intelligent men is by nature artificial and unrealistic?

>>11571168
How similar are the characters you write to the women you know? You might be accurate, but I don't know. I am convinced there really IS something fundamentally different about women which requires you to enter a different mindset when you write them. I am reminded of the Oprah interview with Cormac McCarthy, where she comments that he has problem writing women, to which he replies that "women are complicated" or something of the sort (thank goodness it was just before that would be considered a controversial comment). Same thing about Philip Roth, which newspapers and magazines also made sure to bring up in his obituaries. So, if these giants of American literature have problems with it, isn't it something that really requires more of us as writers than we think?

>>11570871
I have thought about reading books written by females, with females as main characters. However, I always run into my problem number 1. The decreased self-awareness makes for strange characters, and that lack of truth to oneself is something I can't unsee. Even in stories like The Yellow Wallpaper, which I like, there is this eerie feeling as though there was a gap between what the character is portrayed as and what the character would really be. The only author that I have not found this problem in is Flannery O'Connor, who writes fantastical characters, as one anon suggested I do. However, she probably does not run into these problems because her writing toys more with concepts than with characters, something which is not my primary focus. It is like getting mad over characters not feeling true in a Jorge Luis Borges' short story, which would only show that the reader missed the point of the writing in the first place (diving deep into interesting concepts through the vehicle of fiction).

>>11570882
Though I began the thread a self-declared misogynist, I think these things do not play into the state of woman-hating at all. If the tricky situation is how they are viewed by a subset of the male population, then I think this is not an "unfair" standard, but an unfair expectation - that women must be accepted by each and every type of person. I concede that there will always be men out there who dislike women to a point that it turns to violence. I have seen this firsthand and these are the males paying attention to, as their opinions can cause a lot of trouble. But the whining shut-ins, which is a category I could even fit into? Their opinions don't really matter, the same way I do not feel the right to be accepted by all woman. And again I shall comment that what I am talking about is NOT the catch-all term "women" for referring to sexually attractive girls around my age as I have posted here >>11570804 but women in general. Therefore, the fact of whether women are attainable or not, and how this affects the male's view on the gender, can't help but feel irrelevant to this discussion.

>>11571038
Interesting post, anon, which reminds me of something else that drove me deep into this rabbit-hole: Araby. I think it is wonderful how Joyce captures this idealization of women, and even more how he captures the subsequent disillusionment when your ideas are shattered. When you write these beautiful waifu types, how do you feel? I have done it, and at the end have felt like the narrator in the short story, "a creature driven and derided by vanity," burning "with anguish and anger." Because, like I said again, it is not the truth, but what we wished it was. I think James Joyce even commented later, attempting to give an accurate portrayal of women, that "yes," is the "female word of surrender", and hence why it was so prominent at the end of Ulysses. Naturally, this feels more real than the way the narrator saw his Madonna in Araby. (Also, I can't find the source now, but if any anon knows, help me out.) Again I am led to another interesting question: is the strain of misogyny I allege to posses only the bitterness of a former "white knight"? And if so, how common is it for other men out there fits this idea?

>>11570834
So I should consider all my assumptions to be correct? I feel the vindication of "being right" at the moment, but I what I would like to know is if, with your post, you meant that men will inevitably be led to this idea. If so, I would like to know from more men how their experience with these sorts of realizations is like.

>>11571099
Again, I did not intend this to be a troll thread.

>>11571103
Thank you for the actual advice, as it's been in short supply for the last few posts. I will be sure to read Little Women with utmost attention. And, if nothing works, I guess I will take your suggestion to write female villains and then post the results on the critique threads - that should be fun. Which leads me to:

>>11570982
I do not have any female friends, and I do not have friends, period. However, I have been raised in a female-dominated household, and I noticed many truths in female stereotypes which were shunned in my upbringing. As for the writing, I would post it now, but I am afraid anons would stop giving the useful advice I need once they see it, and would instead focus on nitpicking things I didn't ask to be corrected (which would probably be mistakes I am already aware I make).

>>11570667
Why don't you just create your ideal women through writing

I like women they are my frens

>>11570870
> I don't want to sound like I'm trying to re-word basic feminist thought

Please do. I like it when even the most common arguments are rephrased. It goes to show that the speaker really understands the concept behind them and is not only attracted to the argument's popularity or uses it as a signaling device in social contexts.

> the cultural undercurrent, for women, for basically ever, has been that they are expected to be vapid or void of responsibility because they are just an accessory to their sexual counterpart

I like how you mentioned that women are expected to be vapid. To use of a story I already mentioned, it is something which The Yellow Wallpaper really puts into view. However, as I commented in a previous post, I really, really dislike the "historical arguments" - things have been x for too long, therefore y is justified. And with the rest with the your post I get the same vibe (in no attempt to discredit its entirety) - just after I mentioned that men are more likely to take the role of "the villain" in an act of self-sacrifice, many arguments made in your post about the actions of women go back to culture, expectations, and all these hazy outside forces. You did concede that it is not an excuse for the behavior of women, but for now I am attempting to look at things as they are, and not their reasons for being. I do think culture and expectations play a role, but it is the insistence on these things as ultimate culprits which is awfully unappealing. Furthermore, I could never write a female hero, for example, if this is what it takes to understand the "female situation," - if a woman is not ready to sacrifice herself, or does not understand the implications of sacrifice when she does do it, then there is no reason for women to be heroes. Which is something I don't want! I want to write heroes of all genders, if possible, but subscribing to the ideas you suggest make it difficult. I believe you could refute this by saying that women sacrifice themselves for their children - which makes for great story lines, but goes back to the idea of the person not being aware of what they are doing. It feels like a cop out if we look at something that is understood to be the innate female nature and then form a spectacle out of that. For Christ's sake, it would be like dramatizing a man's need for sexual gratification - something done to death, and something which groups of young men are mocked for doing right now.

>In addition to that most women have felt their opinions were undervalued in the past

I have a great dislike for the idea of the individual as the culmination of the suffering of their antecedents. I do understand the point, that women want to take in "their moment," but even as a general excuse, I think it is ridiculous. I know you are not even trying to defend this type of person, as you said they make your blood boil, but it does not work to see this as a tangible explanation to that type of behavior either.

>>11570870
Continuing.

>This is also true, but this is honestly just symptomatic of the rigid gender expectations I described above

First of all, I want to write truthful things as I have said before, but I also want to write interesting fiction. I suppose if you are making stories about the interplay of the individual with society as some big system, then this could be used in writing. But I want to write something humanistic, where the reasons for someone to act one way comes from themselves. Of course, glossing over exploitation does no good, but I am not writing tales of exploitation anyway, and I dislike how so many journalists bring up this idea again and again. If I have never kissed a girl because my face is full of burn marks, then I become some rampant serial killer, is that a good story? It is an entertaining idea, but I do not think the outside forces that impact someone to act in certain ways can be given that much credit IF we are to believe that we can understand ourselves. I like the philosophy of science, that we can understand the world through observation and test, and to disregard everything to become someone going along the flows of "culture", and to consider so many things as being relative, is a terrible way to view the world. When I am talking to you, for example, I am viewing an interesting woman who came out to change my mind despite being in a website filled with aggressiveness toward yourself just because of your gender. This is an interesting story. But what if I viewed you as someone who who isn't doing any effort to really go against ideas that matter to you, and who could not care less about what people have to say in a gender conversation, with no willpower of your own? To me, this deterministic thought ruins interesting fiction. But here I am again with the difficult choice: to abandon a great degree of truthfulness to make things interesting, or to completely disregard my own philosophies to write something, well, bad.

>>11570667
stop going to /pol/

go out in real life instead. meet actually wonderful female people ( they do exist ) I'll concede the vast majority of women suck, but so does the vast majority of men :)

is it any coincidence that the least useful major of any board (/lit/) has the dumbest perceptions of women? even people on /sci/ aren't this sexist. but i guess it comes from the fact that people in /sci/ are more likely to be exposed to smart women in real life and not pretentious losers who think they know more than they actually do

>>11571110
This is an interesting post because it focuses a lot of the problems women face as the effect such problems have on their psyche, especially the "Aesthetic scrutinisation and ridiculous beauty/bodily standards." I think this is a tired argument.

Now, think about being a man. An average man. You are not born tall, good looking and have no degree of power. You are taught to respect women, let them do as they please, while the main use you have is still to be a protector. You are full of emotional troubles. You run for men to help you? They won't. You try talking to women around your age? Instant turn-off. You see men a great many degrees more successful than yourself and what do you do? Shut up and don't whine, not only because is not man-like, but because it hurts you social status with both women AND MEN. Think about this again: men DO NOT find support in other men. And they have to play social games with women around their age, and to protect the women who are older or younger than themselves. Well, what if you, as a man, was just open with other men? Guess what, the whole male gender is always competing, so that is not possible. The prize? Sexual gratification. But never mind that, you now give up on sexual matters and focus on becoming "powerful." In this process, every one is always trying to exploit you from both sides, it is a pincer attack from both genders. Were you just humiliated by a man and a woman? Doesn't matter, nowhere to run. Did you manage to finally become successful? Good, now women either love you or despise you, men either want something from you or want to destroy you. What if you had never become successful then? You are invisible, going on about your routine. Now, let's thrown in a hypothetical. Now what if this happens: you are unlucky enough to cross paths with a total maniac. You are mugged, robbed and, the guy really is a maniac, so he, guess what, rapes you. You just suffered the ultimate humiliation, rape. Wait, you are not a woman? Let them have their moment first. Put all of that back in. Remember, you have nowhere to run.

This is why I thing arguments that focus on the psychological condition of a gender to further a point are useless - I just made a sob story and painted it as an argument.

>>11572814
What is your experience with wonderful women like?

>>11572836
So are women pursuing degrees in literature-related fields
>pretentious losers who think they know more than they actually do?
Why? And how is this different for women and STEM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBz0BTb83H8

>>11572902
One of my best friends is a wonderful girl. I'd say she's a lot like a sister to me. She's incredibly intelligent, beautiful and funny, will debate anything passionately, getting serious and fiesty- especially if we've had a few drinks. She has very strong opinions, yet is no obnoxious tumblr-sjw at all.

You can go to a bar with her to just play chess and drink beer for hours, Or later go to the beach-

She reads a lot, is passionate about arts, has great taste in music (she grew up musically, knows classical music theory)

I think her favorite authors are Céline, Mishima and Murakami. Artists: matisse, basquiat and twombly.

She's just all round a brilliant person with a wonderful laughter and a radiant persona, but most of all, integrity and dignity, empathy and kindness.

She kinda looks like Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation


10/10 person. One of my favorite people.

>inb4 "friendzoned"

nah it's not like that:) I have a girlfriend and she has a boyfriend.

Women can be amazingly endearing. You just have to get out and meet some; and you won't get a realistic impression of women on 4chan, twitter or your old highschool chicks in your facebook feed.

>>11572999
you are literally in love with this girl and refuse to admit it

>>11573020
You're wrong but I very much get that you could think that after what I wrote. I'm just extremely fond of another person of the opposite sex. Never romantically, just very, very fond of her person.

>>11572814
I've met a few nice girls but not a single woman who isn't child-like in intellect.

>>11570798
I think you are projecting common issues onto a whole gender. Some of what you wrote is often true but you judge the entire collective for their actions instead of acknowledging that there can be individuals who buck the common trends. Also, likely because you are a man, you fail to notice similar issues present in the vast majority of men and if you do notice them they do not infuriate you because likely you participate in those stereotypes at least to an extent. The vast majority of people are not self-aware, egotistical, and place others into boxes. Hell, from a historical perspective men have forced women into roles and conceived of them as only existing in those limited roles far more than women have to men.

>>11572508
>I do not have any female friends, and I do not have friends, period. However, I have been raised in a female-dominated household, and I noticed many truths in female stereotypes which were shunned in my upbringing. As for the writing, I would post it now, but I am afraid anons would stop giving the useful advice I need once they see it, and would instead focus on nitpicking things I didn't ask to be corrected (which would probably be mistakes I am already aware I make).
You noticed these stereotypes within your household or do you notice it in public? The latter is extremely stupid to make since you already admitted that you only have superficial contact with females. Also if you aren't gonna post anything then i will have to assume this is troll or bait

>>11572999
OP here. Thank you for the good examples, I can somewhat picture that person in my mind. However, I will make some observations first and you tell me if they are correct.

You said that his girl "grew up musically," then I surmise you mention multiple ventures to bars, which is I how, I suppose, you are getting those drinks and socializing. Then, it seems that both of your lives are deeply involved with art in general, and not just literature. At the end, you talk about looking at old high school chicks on facebook.

From what I gather, you both grew in upper middle class/high class households, went to college for something art related, have enough disposable income to regularly socialize, and your odd mention of high school point to the fixation Americans, and especially higher class Americans have with youth and youth culture, which translates to a fixation with the high school environment.

This is not a sentencing, but am I correct in a assuming you are of very well-off financial means? I went through all this analyzing because this just opened up an interesting possibility to me: to analyze women and to make generalizations of women per economic class. I think it could be that richer folks turn out to be more thoughtful people overall and this expresses itself across genders. Now I might have something to investigate, and as obvious of a concept as this sounds, I hadn't realized its full implications until now.

>>11570993
Utena is better constructed then most books and has one of the best female characters I've seen in any medium.

>>11573035
mate all the males you meet to are also fucking stupid

generally, people are fucking stupid

>>11573087
But they are not child-like in intellect. Women are consistently, and I've known many. Men are consistently above child-like in intellect.

>>11571110
I'm sorry that this post led to some ignorant replies. It really isn't worth trying to engage on feminist subjects on this site. I am not saying men don't face issues but anyone claiming that men are more oppressed by modern society than women is hopelessly clueless about the world and lets their own experience blind them to the bigger picture.

>>11573108
Your argument got fucking destroyed and that's why you're ending on an ad hominem.

>>11573076
>You noticed these stereotypes within your household or do you notice it in public?

Both. I noticed it in my household and at college and workplaces, but of course I can analyze it better in my home.

And since you want to see my writing, here it is >>11520742

>>11573077
>am I correct in a assuming you are of very well-off financial means?
absolutely. We're not filthy rich, but upper-middle class in Norway is pretty well off, to say the least.

You're actually correct in every assumption. Interesting indeed

I do indeed, personally look down upon americans /american youth- and high school- culture, i might even concede I detest it.

I actually did hate everyone around me in high school. I wasn't bullied at all, I just thought they were all inferior. Everybody looked the same and everybody aspired to look the same, and as soon as someone diverge from that, you're 'weird'. I guess I was considered somewhat weird, as I was into big books and strange music.

But isn't it like this in every shitty suburb outside some larger city?

>>11572508
If you don't have any friends you will never be able to write things people want to read, at least insofar as it pertains to people interacting with each other. I'm not saying you should stop writing but you must learn to socialize and meet a variety of people if you want to create interesting characters who aren't a direct copy of yourself or your ideas because you lack experience with others. People can be very different from each other. How can you hate women if you don't even know them even at a cursory level? You've obviously got some issues with yourself if you hate half the world's population without having experience with them, it's pre-judging and over-generalizing to an insane degree.

>>11570667
Just skip writing female characters altogether, as a male you'll never write a realistic female anyway.

>>11573147
This is a good point. Having friends and being part of various relationships would give me a place from which to derive assumptions about human behavior I would then put it in my writing. However, I am not entirely convinced engaging in something and being able to understand it are the same thing. Are the best experts the best teachers? The skill a writer develops is to be able to explain things, and even if he or she understands something at the same level of a non-writer, the writer will still be able to capture a larger picture of what little they know. Therefore, writing about something requires a different set of skills then engaging in the thing you are writing about, which could give me the opportunity to write about relationships even if I might not be as good in handling them as the next person is.

>>11573115
Wasn't me that posted it bud

>>11573123
I am happy I could get some stuff right. And for the last part, I wouldn't know, I never lived in a suburb.

>>11573120
You felt the stereotypes of women to be true based on the women in your home? Do you have any understanding of statistics?

Also I don't know what are you worrying about being unable to write female character when the old woman is as bland as the old man.

>>11573151
Might do that senpai, getting real discouraged.

>>11573199
>You felt the stereotypes of women to be true based on the women in your home?
Indeed

>Do you have any understanding of statistics?
Not really, I suck at anything related to numbers, but if you care to explain the math to me, I wouldn't mind.

>the old woman is as bland as the old man.
Fuck you too senpai. But thanks for reading, I guess.

>>11573176
Most great writers certainly weren't social butterflies but if you really do have no friends at all you are missing out on a huge part of the human experience and since the vast majority of people and characters have friends I think it would be necessary to at least experience it if you want to write a variety of characters. That said you could write works which are uniquely the products of your own lonely experience but those will probably lack appeal or variety. Also I do stand by my statement that you shouldn't hate a group you avow to have little knowledge of.

>>11573096
>Men are consistently above child-like in intellect
says the guy posting on a male-dominated site that spews out brap memes and "mommy want milkies" as well as /pol/-tier conspiracy theories and encourages autistic personalities like chris chan. if this isn't stupid i don't know what is

>>11571110
>Reading a nutjob with an open mind
What progress!
I don't mean to disparage Simone further but if you're gonna read "interesting fem works" Dworkin at least was an original feminist.

>>11573235
Why must childish humor be automatically a synonym of low intellect?

>>11573235
Irony makes the stupid smart

>>11573235
the fact that you confuse cheap fuel satire with sincerity convinces me that you are in fact the moron.

>>11573222
The sampling you had is too small and too biased to reasonably deduce anything. Hence I mentioned earlier if you knew people personally that are also outside of your family for a more (but still very limited) data to analyze with.

>Fuck you too senpai.
If it helps you the conversation with the soldier revealed nothing about either characters. Were they staying in the house because of memories and sentimentality? Did they simply not mind dying then and there? Did they fear dragging the soldier down? No mention or hint to their rationale of staying, of which both characters were in complete tandem with each other.

The old man could mention some military lingo or knowledge to help in his persuasion or the old women speaking like a mother. But overall it was a bland conversation so much so that whatever shit is coming to them, I wasn't fearing for their safety.

>>11573108
Calling the claims that were named "ignorant" doesn't actually make them so. Why not, as a simple intellectual exercise, actually persuade us that your point of view is correct. In a democracy (or democratic republic, or any free society for that matter) you have to actually persuade people. You are angry that people are not persuaded by what you have to say. They have specified the reasons. And your response is to call them ignorant. How effective do you think that is?

It isn't so much the case that men really think they themselves are oppressed, but that they don't believe that women are. First and foremost you must consider the actual differences between men and women. And the fact of their complementariness, a fact shared by no two other human groups. Feminist predicate their arguments on the false notion that men and women are the same. Ergo, any differences in their respective social status is due to men "oppressing" them. If you accept the fact the men and women are different, then most of the differences between their respective social positions becomes easily comprehensible as a consequence of their different natures. You are not "oppressed" because you were not allowed to fight in the wars, or learn to be a blacksmith, etc. In the same way that men were not "oppressed" for not being permitted to stay at home and nature babies. Differences were recognized, roles assigned, and roles were enforced to ensure the survival of the family, city, country, etc.

The reason women are more miserable today than they were in the past (both absolutely and relative to men) is because they assume that their own nature (in so far as it is different from that of men) is mere social conditioning. So that acting contrary to their nature is now called "women's liberation." What in God's name makes you think you can override your nature? What makes you think you are so different from other mammals, such that you think you can live in an entirely artificial manner and escape its consequences? You can't.

The fact is, men don't want to play America's next top victim with you. It doesn't much matter about domestic abuse, trafficking, etc. Besides the fault line deciding who gets placed in these evil situations is race and class, not gender. These things are not evenly distributed between ALL women. And they are more significantly distributed among men and women, than they are say between rich women and poor women, etc.

Moreover, men resist seeing you as a victim not only because if you're a victim who isn't, but also because having victim status is having a special kind of power that permits a person free reign to victimize so-called "privileged" peopled. I could go on and on.

>>11571038
You are seeing women as object, even worse than hating them.

>>11573235
The level of humor projected on this website is way too sophisticated to be considered "child-like". The layers of irony portrayed alone is something a child or woman would never be able to grasp. You'll never find a child or woman who's made an infographic as meticulous as some of those /x/ guys.

>>11570798
>seems

Lol eat a dick faget

>>11573287
>>11573271
>All these morons pretending it is still satire
Whatever semblance of satire and irony died in 2016

>>11573281
No. I'm not here to convince people because it's hopeless. I just wanted to express my sentiment to that poster. Your post is steeped in broad generalizations about gender and feminism and assumes I think a lot of things I don't and assumes I'm a woman which I am not. It's not worth my time to have a long multi reply argument with you because it's pretty obvious you are set in your ways as well as being even less well read on the subject than I am.

>>11573284
It's a humble defense mechanism men now have in the 21st century for replacing the reality that they will never have a "feminine" partner.
Most western women compete and slander men in an attempt to find power where they neglect in grace, poise and style (which is hard fought for). Most women realize they cannot compete and turn into men as a last resort to assert their place in the world for lack of beauty. The sexual revolution happened and now men unironically care more about being loved by a woman than having sex thanks to the cheapening of love as a commodity. Give the guy a break.

>>11572836
/sci/ posters are autistic and spergs are by default submissive and less driven.

>>11573313
>Your post is steeped in broad generalizations about gender and feminism

Like what?

>being even less well read on the subject than I am.

If you are so well-read, then destroy my arguments. And I'm "set in my ways" only to the extent that I am convinced of the rectitude of my arguments. If you can't show otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe that I'm correct, and that you're bluffing.

>>11570938
>I'm here to lift the humble and squash the pretentious.
wew lad

>>11570667
leave

>>11573357
You scared?

>>11573351
This is the last post I'll make to you.
>Like what?
>>11573281
>Feminist predicate their arguments on the false notion that men and women are the same. Ergo, any differences in their respective social status is due to men "oppressing" them. If you accept the fact the men and women are different, then most of the differences between their respective social positions becomes easily comprehensible as a consequence of their different natures. You are not "oppressed" because you were not allowed to fight in the wars, or learn to be a blacksmith, etc. In the same way that men were not "oppressed" for not being permitted to stay at home and nature babies.
Basically all of that is complete horseshit. The last point is especially weird since feminism is concerned with how gender roles restrict and negatively impact both men and women. It isn't about preventing women from acting traditionally feminine but giving both genders the chance to go outside those bounds without judgement
>The reason women are more miserable today than they were in the past (both absolutely and relative to men)
Extreme doubt.
You're basically making huge assumptions about how women and men are different (which I think they are) and then prescribing values based on those wildly reductive assumptions. You're running into the is-ought problem as well as assuming the way things have been is the way they should always be. You assume what is natural is good while defining natural as your own set period of history when for the vast majority of our time on the planet we were hunter gatherers. Almost nothing in modernity uses hunter-gatherer values as their basis because nobody wants to go back to that and it bears little relevance on what society has molded people in to. And while we are not divorced from our animal backgrounds we've certainly changed a lot and it's foolish to take a prescriptive approach using that time frame as the basis.

>>11573418
>You're running into the is-ought problem as well as assuming the way things have been is the way they should always be.
Thinking things should change runs into the same problem. Is this what it looks like when women try to look smart? Yikes.

>>11573426
I'm a guy but also if you want to make claims about what should happen it must be based on values not mere "facts" which I don't even agree are facts. I think the values promoted by feminism are better than what the misogynists in this thread are peddling. I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to you though since you obviously have some sort of complex or mental hangup.

>>11573508
>if you want to make claims about what should happen it must be based on values not mere "facts"
Jesus you don't even understand the is/ought problem in the first place

>>11570825
How the fuck have you not read Virginia wolf

>>11570667
you're an utter fool, you reek of "morality" and most likely you identify with these traits women seemingly have, (they probably do you just have no way to prove it) that you dont like and thats what annoys you
>>11570798
>Purposeful lack of self-awareness
>muh self awareness is good
how are you writing a book if you dont even understand social dynamics

>More egotism than normal.
what is normal, fuck off

>Forcing certain roles on men
>t. more practical

im not sure if you dont want to embrace your own faggotry and are repressed or have a hard time admitting women make better "alphas" than a cuck like yourself

>>11573642
Wow, way to get worked up, anon.

How do I "reek of 'morality'"? And what have I written in this thread that makes you assume my opinions come from projecting?

>>11573514
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions,is, andis not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with anought, or anought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as thisought, orought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

We cannot base ought statements on facts or reasonings from facts instead they must rely on axiomatic values which are taken as valuable in and of themselves if they are to be made at all.

>>11573749
You are aware that the quotation you posted contradicts your following statement, right? What the fuck.

>>11573689
you haven't given a reason as to why these traits are bad from an anthropological stand point. They just make YOU mad.
INB4 but evolution made them x or y (happier with men, child carers etc). Evolution is a theory of survival and can only be viewed backwards if even, so those things now but the future woman will be different and evolution will justify that too

>>11573749
>ought statements must be based on opinions or else they are meaningless
so what you're saying is your views have no basis in tangible reality and only on emotional appeal

>>11573769
>*replaces half of anthropology*

>>11573765
Except it doesn't. Let me spell it out for you. You can't use what is to determine what ought to be. Instead if you want to argue what ought to be you must start with a set of values which explicitly state what ought or ought not to be. The values cannot be derived from reasonings about the world as it exists or really even reason at all. Then after those values are chosen reason can be used.
>>11573785
To an extent that is the nature of reasonings about ethics. Have you actually read anything written in the past 300 years about ethics? There is no such thing as a truly objective morality or ethical structure because by its nature you cannot derive it objectively.

>>11573801
>You cannot derive an ought from an is, you can only derive an ought from itself
What the fuck. I've never seen such a disgusting interpretation of Hume.

>>11573749
So you agreed with the person that you replied to?

>>11573788
>*women are for reproduction

>>11573801
>to argue what ought to be you must first define what ought to be
you are insane

>There is no such thing as a truly objective morality or ethical structure because by its nature you cannot derive it objectively.
no shit. you realize this makes defending feminism worthless, right? same thing as bringing up the munchhausen trilemma to attempt to avoid losing an argument.

>>11573769
From an anthropological standpoint, I would say these things are bad because they show a lack of virtue and sabotage the understanding people have of one another within a community. If I need the truth from someone for whatever purpose and if I know that person x will lie to themselves, I won't be able to trust them or get what I need, even if it is absolutely necessary. If I know that person x expects me to be a certain way but will be indirect about it, then I will also have a problem trusting that person. And how do people get together and accomplish things as a group in the first place? Trust.

However, I will not deny that these things make me mad and I am not sure if I have indeed denied it at any point in the thread. Furthermore, these traits make for writing fiction frustrating, as what you realize what you wanted in a character is difficult to portray truthfully if you are to write about a certain subset of the population, since something you took for granted is absent in them.

>>11573811
I guess VR/sex robots are needed to fill their other non-parasitic role, you're right.

>>11573804
The whole point is that you really can't determine an ought in any reasonable objective way. It's inherently subjective. So yes you need to define a base ought proposition to find further courses of actions and that initial definition is inherently arbitrary. Such is the nature of ethics.
>>11573821
It makes it worthless to argue if we disagree about fundamental values but that isn't necessarily the case.

>>11573835
there are women right now that are better at anything you will ever do so where does that leave you?
the bigger point is change is happening and everyone is aware of what is or will be obsolete soon

>>11573853
>the is/ought problem stops applying when you ignore the fact that it's a problem

>>11573865
>there are women right now that are better at anything you will ever do so where does that leave you?
Feeling like shit.

>>11573865
That's not true at all. I've never witnessed a female guitar player as skilled as I am, though I've seen hundreds of males in that category. Highly skilled female guitar players remind me of trained monkeys, no organic expression, no soul, capped in ability.

>>11573853
>You must first derive an ought from an is so that you can derive an ought from said ought
How are you not seeing the fundamental problem with your interpretation

>>11573895
I'm not saying you derive an ought. I'm saying you pick one arbitrarily.

>>11573919
>avoiding the is/ought problem by deriving an ought from nothing at all
that's a completely separate problem. you freely admit your claim has no basis whatsoever.

>>11573834
> I would say these things are bad because they show a lack of virtue and sabotage the understanding people have of one another within a community. If I need the truth from someone for whatever purpose and if I know that person x will lie to themselves, I won't be able to trust them or get what I need, even if it is absolutely necessary. If I know that person x expects me to be a certain way but will be indirect about it, then I will also have a problem trusting that person. And how do people get together and accomplish things as a group in the first place?
>t. women are liars, its borne in them I KNOW IT, I JUST DO, YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME
>Case dismissed, get him outta here, and get him a psych eval. before letting loose, yeesh
You cant know for a fact if they are or not, you could say this for men too, you just have a clear bias.
>Trust
Trust is a trial and error concept not an inherent given, are you mad, first you hope and then you find out if its true or not its a gamble every time
You're also very naive to think you can see through every woman and that women consider you someone worthy of fooling, there are obviously many stupid ones which im sure youve encountered, we all have, and there are the opposite, its up to the reader to decide if the characters are believable, you may also be scared to seem like you have no insight to women or that what you write will be obviously sexist but in that case youre just not cut out for novellas, try historical lit

>Furthermore, these traits make for writing fiction frustrating, as what you realize what you wanted in a character is difficult to portray truthfully
Or??? orrrrr maybe write them as capable people with their own goals where certain actions while seemingly rational are of inner subconscious workings, you know normal people

>>11573884
jesus you're insecure

>>11573884
> I've never witnessed a female guitar player
>Highly skilled female guitar players remind me of trained monkeys
well, which is it

>>11573884
Superiority complex much? Why don't you record something on vocaroo for us. Show us how much soul you've got crammed into your tiny little brain.

>>11573788
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKBtMLOC2oU

>>11571110
How do you define opression?
Domestic violence is always horrible, but it's an illegal individual interaction and so not a systematic oppression. Oppression would be if one gender weren't allowed to study STEM. Women being abused at home, which is highly punished by law, is not systematic.
Same goes for other things you mention.
If hairdressers charge women moee than men for the same bob haircut, than that's a systematic problem. If women are forced into marriage, then that's oppression.
Sex trafficing isn't oppression. If sex teafficking was encouraged and women were systematically seen as low value people, then that would be oppressive. But the opposite is the case: Womem to the age of 30 are ascribed inherent value, even independent of their personality.
That's sexist and has sexist conseauences for the work place, but it's also a privilage.
The societal laws are mostly tuned to support the "weaker" gender.

>>11573944
I'm not trying to avoid the problem, I'm saying I personally prefer the values espoused by feminism such as equality of opportunity and individual choice. My claim was that for the guy I replied to to say "this is the way men and women are and therefore it is right" is not a valid argument especially because there really isn't credible evidence that his statements were factually correct anyway.

>>11570683
go fuck men

>>11573953
>t. women are liars, its borne in them I KNOW IT, I JUST DO, YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME

Well, how many of us can really point toward statistics for everything we say? Anyways, I would thank you for condemning my bias but please say something of more substance in doing so.

Also, the trust problem did not refer to people you have just met - when first meeting people, most of us try to get on the same level as the other person anyways. The problem is that this inability to trust the other would appear when you are already acquainted with them, which turns out to be much worse than if you just met the person and realized they are not trustworthy. And I wouldn't want to write a story where characters are always meeting each other for the first time, so your rebuttal wouldn't apply to this aspect either.

>try historical lit
At least you have some advice, might give it a shot.|

>Or??? orrrrr maybe write them as capable people with their own goals where certain actions while seemingly rational are of inner subconscious workings, you know normal people
If I can't figure out what the subconscious workings are, what's the point?

Lastly, out of curiosity, are you a girl, anon? You write like a dude but you seem very defensive. I assure I am not a threat and mean no harm to females. Or do you think me young and fool and are mad at seeing my unevolved thoughts? In that case, I am sorry too, I know this is a touchy subject and some viewpoint differences can be very bad. There no need to seem me as a threat or an annoyance, I would like you to fight the idea and not me. But oh well, I guess it might be my morality showing again.

>>11574079
im a guy
>The problem is that this inability to trust the other would appear when you are already acquainted with them
this is text book trust issues or less its more "socially acceptable" term, paranoia, (write about paranoia and being unable to form attachments, that way you circumvent the problem) and you need to get over it somehow
>If I can't figure out what the subconscious workings are, what's the point?
you get to choose what they are, deep down she wants to x, she cant say this to herself so everything she does to be successful is in part, to get that goal etc Im not a writer make it more nuanced, watch the film Persona and read up on it, i dont know

Also cmon dude no female is afraid by an anon on a forum

OP, I think your hatred for women may stem from you being raised on deluded notions of gender equality that led you to expect women to behave as you once wrote them: men with different genitals and perhaps different circumstances.

Women are fundamentally different in a big way, but really only worse by the standards we hold men to. To do that, to hold them by those standards, is itself an absurdity. In traditional societies they are held to separate standards that take into account their natures and are given roles that suit these. If you can shake off your inner expectation for them to be men (not easy in a feminist-saturated society) some women could, and in my opinion should, become quite charming and attractive. You may even cease to feel threatened by the ones playing men, and come to regard them with pitying fondness.

>>11574008
There is no "ought" in "this is the way something is." The is/ought problem is irrelevant. Just pretentious rambling, proven by you thinking deriving an ought from nothing is relevant whatsoever to the is/ought problem.

>>11573954
>facts are insecure

>>11573963
>reading comprehension

>>11573992
Sure, when I get home from work.

>>11574217
>Youre better than women
>Men are better than you
>a woman is highly skilled "for a woman"
>not the same high skill as you and the boys
>so what does high skill really mean

>>11574260
A spectrum of relativity. In fact stating a skill level is impossible without a context of comparison.

have you ever met an autistic female? the state of womanhood is quite the deal of suffering, and is pretty deadening to all but the brightest of minds. in my opinion trans women are particularly vapid creatures, but that's veering off topic. do you think about how pointless life in today's society is? the human condition has been reduced to being a tool with a serial number, men and women alike.

>>11574190
Actually insightful comment, thank you anon. Yeah, my mother and sisters were always insistent on the ideas of absolute gender equality and whatnot, so it might stem from there.

>some women could, and in my opinion should, become quite charming and attractive. You may even cease to feel threatened by the ones playing me
Yeah, I hope this happens; it would be the ideal. You've read me surprisingly well.

>>11570923
>. It's almost like tomboy is the ideal, as opposed to ubermensch lady

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

>>11574492
have you ever met an autistic female?
Yes, but low-functioning and also not around my age.

>the state of womanhood is quite the deal of suffering, and is pretty deadening to all but the brightest of minds
hearty kek

>do you think about how pointless life in today's society is? the human condition has been reduced to being a tool with a serial number, men and women alike.
Very much. I wish I could say I had seen it better before, but that would not be true.

>>11571074
>You genuinely believe that men are the more oppressed sex than women? I'm asking seriously.
Yes.

>>11571074
men have lower life expectancy, suicide more often, are more often homeless, have less legally enshrined protections and privileges(note 'legally enshrined').

idk how you could really argue they arent doing worse

>>11573108

>>11573884
Yvette Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0RYG-oy0yk

>>11574774
asians aren't women
just kidding she's really good

>>11574190
This. The inherit difference in nature is something everyone still on a fundamental level knows too, and unspoken in progressive circles but still acted. I feel for you though, OP, in that your expectations may fail reality, especially in an age where the nature and expectations of sexes are purposely distorted and confused.
For a well-written positive and exuberant expression of irrational feminine nature maybe try the bard's As You Like It and Antony and Cleopatra.

>>11570667
If you didn't already hate them and get over it in your 30s, I am afraid it is too late. You need to wait approximately 15 years after your peak anger to fully understand womanhood.

"Swallowing the redpill" here is just realizing that young womens life revolves around sex (seeking out the best among what they can get) while mens life is about trying to get sex (fucking everything that's not literally gross to them) while also being a worker drone.
I can see how that would make one sad but why would it make you hate women?
Start a business, partnership or contract over ownership and work effort and soon you'll have men flake on you and backstab you. By that eeaction you'd then also start hating men.
You just seem to suffer from awaking from a Madonna whore complex, now realizing that if you had a daughtee, she too by nature would eventually and naturally enjoy having her hair pulled back and fantasise about a handsome man using her mouth for his pleasure.
On 4chan you witnessed 30 year old men fetishising drawing of pure innocent school girls with high pitched voices and big perky bouncimg mammaries. Does this make you hate men? It's instinctive desire enabled by a new governing possibilities

I think my hatred for women stems from overcorrection of how valued they are in society. Women are raised to be rays of sunshine in a working man's life and they don't even realize it. It's sad really. Men are meant to slave away, fighting the good fight to support their families and all women have to do is smile when you get home. The part that gets to me is that this is somehow considered a detriment to women rather than men. So now they're bitter when you get home and you still make all the money, because they don't need to make you happy anymore, and if you don't make any money you're literally worthless to them. You spend 5 years of your life learning how to work a job you hate for the next 40 for a woman who loves the job you work more than she loves you. We were memed into working our asses off to put food on the table while they learned to put on make up so that he pays for dinner.

I hate them because their opinion matters more than because they're women.

>>11576461
The problem is that we all know that men suck, but it is wrongthink to say the same thing about women, no matter how true it is.

Did someone point out you are gay, yet? If not, may I? *points*

>>11577466

>>11577466
I thought I was gay for a while but I made the experiment already and unfortunately my peepe only reacts to naked women.

>>11572508
>how do you feel?
It's a strange feeling. I am fully aware that women like whom I write are exceptionally rare, and that I'll most likely never meet one. I don't really care about if my writing is realistic, I like to write about fantasy and the ideal form of things (or the opposite).

>>11573284
No, I don't objectify women; I just write what I consider the ideal form of a 'woman'. And appearance has very little to do with it.

>>11573322
You are more correct than I would typically like to admit.

This thread is an absolute shitshow

fuckin hell. absolutely embarassing

>>11573035
A bit more truth to this than I'd want to admit. Obviously OP should make some female friends, and make friends in general if he wants to improve his worldview. There are some genuine waifu types out there who aren't even that pretty, but the combination of them being somewhat cute and having a waifu personality is enough. And there are also women who are as pleasant to be friends with as men.
They really are quite childlike in intellect though. This doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, and often more intelligent than me (at any rate, I'd guess an equal amount of men and women are more intelligent in quantifiable ways than me). But even and maybe even especially intelligent women think like children to a strange extent.
It's honestly not that bad of a thing though. Rational errors can come with being overly empathetic and emotional, but compare an edgy woman to more childlike nice girl, and you'll see how it really isn't so bad for a woman to be mentally childlike. An edgy woman, like a lot of intelligent men, thinks like a teenager. There are as many women who are as whiny, angry, bitter - emotionally a teenager - as the average man of this generation, or even who frequently posts on 4chan. And they can be good friends, provided they are intelligent and funny. They can also be the best to fuck. I have some friends who this is their "type".
But personally, the immature part of myself is not like a child, it's like a teenager. I consider most people here to be like this as well. An adult would be a less emotional than the child and teenager, not as naive as a the child, and not as bitter as the teenager. But since few adults are emotional adults, and one is almost never naturally one but has to train oneself to be one, it is a good question to ask, which is healthier, the childlike or teenager worldview? The answer is the former. The former has a will to live, and this will to live creates a kind of feedback loop of positivity, where because your desire for existence is constantly fulfilled by mere existence, you are delighted and desire to exist even more. This is how I'd define great mental health, which is like physical mental health - better at staying alive and wanting to live. A child has this. When they reach adolescence, a similar self-destructive feedback loop emerges. My bottom line here is, if you're the latter, it might not be such a bad idea to spend more time with the former. In fact, it can be nicer. An emotional adult should have that childlike will to live, and also understand the adolescent death drive thoroughly, keeping it in their sense of humor, their philosophical reflections, and other places where it is valuable but minimizing it overall. That's why it can be good for an emotional teenager and child to be together, either as friends or as romantic partners, they can both improve from one another, rather than merely reinforcing one another.

>>11572508
>I do not have any female friends, and I do not have friends, period.
How do you write characters, my man? I get that you're well read and you also seem like a good reader. If you can base your fiction, and base your character writing simply on other characters in fiction, good for you. All you really need to do then is read more books that are about women and probably ones written by women.
You might need to read less though. Good characters can be a crutch for actual good friends. Especially with a doorstopper, you really feel like you get to know the characters intimately over time. But that just can't be a substitute for getting to know real people over time. The best characters are the ones who seem the most like real people, but real people who we would love if we knew as intimately in real life. Making friends you feel love for, male or female, platonic or romantic, is just like the better version of reading authors who write great and realistic characters. The only thing is it requires more vulnerability than reading a book, which is a great fear for a lot of people. The fear of vulnerability is best confronted by immersion in it, of course. Practice judgment about who to be vulnerable around, but you should probably make some friends bro.

>>11573176
>Are the best experts the best teachers?
No, but the best teachers are at least experts. There's no way logical way of getting around the truth that not just as a writer, but as a person, it's extremely important to put yourself out there and have friends. It is quite scary and sometimes awful, especially if you're starting with nothing. The benefit outweighs the cost though.

after reading a few reviews I actually thought this might be a decent fun read but it is so bad I find it unbearable
it reads a litpoltard in his mid twenties that hasn't read a study in his whole life and has a gigantic boner for literary stylist larpers

>>11572999
You're literally in love with her and it isn't a bad thing, no matter how the other guy or you think about it.

>>11572999
No one writes about their "friends" in this tone, just admit you want to hold her at night.

>>11577812
no
>>11578322
no

Again, like a sister.

>>11573247
>>11573252
>>11573271
>he insulted the club
most men can't see outside of their own delusions either, but their delusions include superiority whereas many of the delusions women hold pivot around feelings of inferiority. Many women I'm familiar with have anxiety and erratic behavior based in their fears of this inferiority. Am I really just a vain dipshit? Do I really need a stable man to lead my life? When I get stressed or I feel challenged by something, is it because I'm inherently incapable of dealing with it like men would? etc.

I think the pit of male despair can sink deeper than female despair because many women have been grappling with their inferiority complex their whole lives. Dudes who fall into hikikomori/r9k levels of despair and self-loathing frequently question where the world went wrong such that it fucked them, because that is the male pathology. Women feel like the world fucked them from the start, either through biology or through society, but they often can't tell which is which and their nightmare is that it is biology.

OP here again, just gonna reply to the last guy.

>>11577715
I like your idea of the female and the male complementing each other because of the level of maturity, let's say, each most commonly reaches. I have no problem with these ideas and think they are nice - I'd only wish that the cultural environment allowed us to say these things openly.

>>11570667
Write poetry instead
Or just go full Mishima

>>11570820
Sakura really is peak anime girl.

>>11570667
Modern popular culture became toxic to your psyche, so instead of being moderate as you may have been at lesser doses (previous eras), you are now exhibiting a psychological anaphylaxis.
There is nothing you can do, you will forever be allergic to it.

>>11572999
Fuck her bro, fuck that puss puss bro, you know you want it, do it dudester, you sound like a fag and your gf will cuck you anyway, DO IT FUCK

>>11570683
Just don't write female characters, thinking about starting to write, I won't get into any of female characters, I am a man, I cannot get myself mentally into this, I don't want to. I feel in a similar way about women a you do. They are no matter to me, maybe a mean to show characteristics of the protagonist, nothing more. They don't belong in the concept at all. Just having female characters makes the book seem more serious/realistic.

>>11571074
you must be really fucking stupid

>>11577518
Then would you rather be gay?

>>11582527
I don't know if given the choice I would take it, but I have thought it might have be en easier that way.

What are some books that will actually help me understand/talk to women that aren't some PUA/redpill shit or self-help books?

>>11582541
Talking to women and being in a long term relationship is the only way.

>approaching writing literature as if you are set out to write an ethnographical study

a shit thread with a disgusting premise

>>11572894
Pitty for man with a malformed soul who has never experienced brotherhood

>>11582541
pro-tip: you wanting to involve women in your life for the sake of fulfilling a goal is a buffer for you feeling incapable of self-provisioning your own contentment and long-term goals associated with that contentment.

>>11582736
This man speaks truth.

>>11582537
I see, well I am, it might be easier because you never feel the urge to attract females, rather guys, what can be hard as well. Also when you fall in love the probability of him #1 being gay as well, 2 feeling the same way and 3 being possibly a life long partner is really low. I am stuck at #1 atm, feels bad not being able to find out whilst having so many feelings and thoughts and hints about him. I'd still always rather choose this kind of pain than any other way of being orientated or stuff like that. ALso my antipathy for females in general is okay in this spectrum. I got to know a friend who is different than the girls I've come to get to know so far. There might always be the one, not necessarily on a romantical base.

Embrace it!

>>11570843
>>11570865
>>11570798
>>11570869
>>11581080
Reminder: If you watch anime, you're a faggot incel. All incels like anime. All incels are also faggots.

Pathetic weak little boys who still watch cartoons. They'd still have mommy dress them if they could.

Pathetic cunts ruined it for the rest of us. I hope they suffer.

>>11583004
>Dude just get drunk and have Jews publish your shit-tier works because they needed it at the time
No, Bukowski is garbage. Always has been, always will be.

>>11583016
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>11583059
"Faggot" isn't homophobia but quite separately to this, I am homophobic anyway because gays are faulty human beings are literally have faulty brains, bro.

You know what you do when you buy a product from like, uh, Amazon, or wherever you shop? And then it arrives and it's broken or not working properly? What do you do with it? You send it back, and then they discard of it, or recycle it. That's what mother nature is going to do to you.

Lol