/lit/ - Literature

>>12688542
they aren't.

but men had millennia to monopolize the market and silence any competing voice of the opposite sex through rampant discrimination and bodily/socio-intimidation

hence whole centuries are silenced of the voices of the great female minds that might've spoken but were gagged due to brute-force prejudices.

I am honestly glad to see male writers being denied publication solely due to their male-ness. payback is a bitch.

>>12688552
Lma. This dude read Virginia wolfs "A room of her own" and thought that it was non fiction.

>>12688552

soccer mom tier cope post

>>12688552
>silenced of the voices of the great female minds
almost got me

*BLOCKS YOUR PATH*

>>12688564
>>12688587
>>12688588
are these post unironic?

holy shit this place is fester with incels

>>12688542
Your forgetting the best book ever written was made by a woman shitlord.............................
Harry Potter

>>12688552

>>12688596
almost got me there again..

>>12688552

if they were really great (((they))) wouldntve been able to silence them (pic related)

>>12688596

>anyone that disagrees with my unbased claims are incels

kek imagine "reading" and having this low retort range

>>12688598

>best book
>harry potter

take your irony somewhere else

>>12688552
Imagine all the female writers lost in time because of oppression...

>>12688542
>he hasn't read The Modern Prometheus

>>12688542
because "good" is relative when speaking in regards to literature and you being a man probably relate more to men than women. doesn't seem like rocket science to me

>>12689542
This is pretty much spot on. Woolf even said as much in AROOO.

Many men seem to get insecure about reading things that don't pertain to a stereotypically masculine topic (war, no gf feels, politics etc.), and since the majority of literary critics throughout history have been men, that meant female authors often got dismissed. I do think this works both ways though, as evidenced by the way in which female critics can't connect with masculine topics in the same way.

>>12688788
There is a prevailing theory that many pieces of literature whose authors were anonymous were possibly women. The problem with getting more good female authors now though is that literature is seen as an outdated medium, so all the talented female writers are going elsewhere.

>>12689603
Where are they going?

>>12689619
TV and film like everyone else. Video games too, in rarer cases.

That's not to say that there aren't good female authors anymore, but they're harder to find. This is especially true when you consider that you don't know which authors are being propped up for social justice reasons and which ones are genuinely good. The amount of good non-fiction female authors has remained at a consistently even number though.

>>12689684
And where are they in the industry? Females will have to come to terms that males dominate these fields because they are biologically more fit. Women tend to be generally more average, so you have for example, the IQ bell curve with most women being 100IQ. While with men, you have a lot of dumb idiots below 90 but also a lot of genius with 130+. This is why you see that there is not a single good female director or screenwriter. Not a single good female cinematographer or composer. Not a single good female game developer. They are simply not fit for these kinds of job. Art is for men.
>The amount of good non-fiction female authors has remained at a consistently even number though
This is only because they dominate the humanities now. Males went to STEM, and the ammount of relevant women in STEM is pathetically low because they simply can't compete with biology.

>>12689603
This is retarded. Literary critics often looked for good female writing. Every single time a female was good, she was rewarded so. Woolf, Dickinson, Austen, Eyre, Eliot, Plath etc etc, the list goes on, all females, all born in past ages of "opression", all beloved by literary critics. Women were actually even more educated than men in the past, especially in the middle class, because women were told to be housewives and men were the providers. Yet, even with the advantages of learning how to read and write before men, they still have produced little if anything. Again, biology answers the issue. It's obvious women are simply inferior cognitively. I mean, just look at history.

>>12689715
should I assume you're cognitively inferior to jane austen then?

>>12689715
>Eyre

>>12689715
jane eyre is a novel by charlotte bronte you stupid nigger

>>12689754
I don't know her IQ, but if we're talking about literary talent, then obviously i'm cognitively inferior to her in that part. People are not equal. Females tend to be inferior but of course there are outliers.

>>12689759
>>12689764
Kek i could've swear that was her name. The funny thing is that i've actually read the book.

>>12689767
okay if you're inferior why would i give a shit about your opinion over people who aren't cognitively inferior? you admit you're cognitively inferior to Virginia Woolfe, yet you disagree with the things she says? sounds about right. look up the dunning-kruger effect.

Any books for considering the female sex is a parasite on the human race?

>>12689776
You seem like the type that would need to get with a parasite to reproduce so try your own diary lol

>>12689603
What are some feminine topics
>Inb4 child birth

>>12688542
Because art is ultimately a masculine pursuit.. It requires reason, drive, spirit, and balls.

>>12689775
I said in the literary department, dummy. I'm obviously not a writer, she was obviously better than me. I'm not talking about intelligence, learn the difference.
>you admit you're cognitively inferior to Virginia Woolfe, yet you disagree with the things she says? sounds about right. look up the dunning-kruger effect.
I didn't admit anything, yet, if you think this is an actual argument then i don't even know what to say to you.

Beloved was written by a lady and it's the best horror novel of the 20th century

Any books that assert that women can be leading partners in a relationship?

>>12689684
Who is your favorite talented female movie writer?

>>12689790
Okay, well she's talking about the literary department. "Good books" entails literary department.
Do you admit you're "cognitively inferior in the literary department" (lol) to Virginia Woolfe? If not, why not? If so, why do you disagree with the things she says about literature if you admit she has a higher literary IQ than yours? Wouldn't she be more likely to know about literature than you if she's "cognitively superior" to you in terms of the "literary department"?
I think you're just going to keep moving the goalposts until you can't be wrong anymore, honestly.

>>12689794
There will never be a great female director. Great films need too much of an artistic sensibility that women are simply not capable of. You need to be in tune with image, literature, music, painting, drama, acting. It's too much for their brains who can only think of petty stuff.

The problem with women is they are extremely influenced by the idea of belonging to a group. There can never be a woman explorer, of territories, of ideas, of concepts. If it was for women we would still be hunting gathering

>>12689790
>people are right until they disagree with me then they're inferior in that department to me
dunning kruger

>>12688552
>this is what normies believe

>>12689801
>Okay, well she's talking about the literary department. "Good books" entails literary department.
Do you admit you're "cognitively inferior in the literary department" (lol) to Virginia Woolfe? If not, why not? If so, why do you disagree with the things she says about literature if you admit she has a higher literary IQ than yours? Wouldn't she be more likely to know about literature than you if she's "cognitively superior" to you in terms of the "literary department"?
Wrong. The literary department means exclusively the art of writing fiction. Of course she is better than me in that department. I don't even write. Judging good books and having opinions on the causes of the low ammount of talented women has absolutely nothing to do with coming up with fairy tales, dummy. It belongs much more to history, politics and so on, and Woolf, in that department, shows her female biology expressing itself again, with absolutely asinine opinions that no one serious take seriously.
>I think you're just going to keep moving the goalposts until you can't be wrong anymore, honestly.
I think you're just going to keep being dishonest because you're either a female or some white knight who's mad women are pretty much trash at anything.

>>12689820
>I don't even write
So what qualifies you to determine what makes a good writer and what doesn't? The fact of the matter is Woolfe is a better writer than anyone here, by your own admission, and that makes her more knowledgeable about writing. How can you sit there and say
>SHE WRITES GOOD BUT DOESNT KNOW SHIT ABOUT GOOD WRITING?
You're an absolute incel. If you can write good books without knowing what good writing is then why are you still poor and not famous?

>>12689820
>What makes you think a baseball player knows more about baseball than me just because he plays baseball well? I don't even play baseball but I can tell you I know more than him
lmao is this really what you consider an argument

>>12689820

>>12689832
>The fact of the matter is Woolfe is a better writer than anyone here, by your own admission, and that makes her more knowledgeable about writing.
Hmm sweetie, no... One can drive a car without ever having any knowledge of its inner workings. The history of writing is basically writers saying "i'm inspired by the muses, i don't know actually how do i write this good and if anyone knew how to actually write this good they would write masterpieces all the time".
Also, be subtle when moving the goalposts, nigga. The discussion was about "why" women are inferior to men in literature. Not about individual "good" female books. It doesn't matter if "Woolf" can judge whether a book is good or not. That never even entered the discussion. The discussion is, females, in general are absolutely trash at pretty much everything. There are of course some exceptions, the bell curve predicts that, but in general they have produced nothing of valor. Biology explains.

>>12689820
>you're mad women are pretty much trash at anything
t. has spent all his free time in the past year doing nothing shitposting on 4chan

>>12689782
Family, war's effects on the homestead, love from the female perspective, gender relations, marriage politics. All part of the human experience.
>>12689820
>it has more to do with history and politics
You do realise it was this exact mindset that Woolf was attacking right? A book is not less important because it doesn't deal with war.

>>12689855
Writing books is not driving cars. How is it similar at all? What part of driving a car is a creative process or involves ideas or anything that writing entails? Terrible analogy that holds no flame whatsoever.
So you're saying you can write good books without knowing what good writing is. Got it. Not even going to bother responding to you anymore.

>>12689840
>a baseball player has immediate knowledge on why certain races are underrepresented in baseball, like asians
>yeah dude, the moment you learn to hit that ball you also learn the inner workings of population genetics which explain why blacks have better evolutionary adaptions which makes them more prone to physical activities! and the same occurs to asians but in contrary!

>>12689871
You're not saying why certain races are under represented in writing. You're saying women aren't under-represented, they're just not smart so they're perfectly represented because they're bad at writing because they're not samrt. Again, terrible analogy. Being good at baseball certainly qualifies you to determine whether or not someone else is also good at baseball, which is what the proper analogy would be.

>>12688542
I don't think so. There are lots of good books written by women. It's just that now they are overrated because English departments want to diversify the Western canon.
Men write better books generally because me are motivated too. I've never met a women with a serious hobby that got in the way of attaining a mate, whereas I've met men who will become celibate in service of their hobbies or dreams. Men are far more driven to do things.

>>12689869
Yikes sweaty... No... The analogy was not related to writing but knowledge itself. One can do something without knowing the inner workings of what he is doing. If writers knew how to produce masterpieces, literature would be nothing but masterpieces. But no, the process doesn't work like that. Woolf herself only has The Waves as a masterpiece and the rest is decent or subpar compared to her contemporaries.

Women for the most part are intellectually average. That is not to say that there are not genius women, however, they just have fewer outliers than men. Men have more geniuses and more retards.

>>12689820
man you got btfo lmao

>>12689881
No, the analogy is towards representation, not quality. Quality is individual, representation is not.

>>12688542
OP getting BTFO soon when Savannah Brown drops her debut novel.

>>12688552
So this unreadable mess is suposed to be one of if not the best book ever written in english.

Seriously this nouveau roman avant l'heure deserves nothing more than to be burned.

>>12689603
>There is a prevailing theory that many pieces of literature whose authors were anonymous were possibly women.
That's not a theory that's wild speculation or even wishful thinking.

>>12688542
Oh, I dunno, women can write well, too, sometimes. Agatha Christie is pretty good for light, attractive reading.