/lit/ - Literature

>>15027166
I read like three words of your post and discerned it was worthless, but I’m giving you a bump because I pity you. Don’t think all men are so merciless next time.

Not sure if bait but alas /lit/ nowadays is the most incel board right after /r9k/ and /fit/

>>15027166
Based

>>15027173
cringe

>>15027173
based
>>15027178
>>15027196
cringe

>>15027174
Most definitely bait.

>>15027173
>>15027174
nothing from that post is bait dumb fuck. Men DID keep women out of creative fields because their masculinity is too weak to handle seeing a woman producing the stuff as them, did they not?

>>15027174
This post is completely accurate. The incelbait on here is sickening, MGTOWs and feminists both need to shut the fuck up.

>>15027224
cringe dude

>>15027166
Its transendentally aesthetic to shit on women due to the current atmosphere in general. One part over reaction to a over reaction (ad infinitum) in dialectic fun with some sense of truth to it and one part post truth. If you are at this level I respect your bait.

If you are still in the polemic dichotomy I pity you.

>>15027166
>The blatant sexism in this board is tiring.
I agree you fucking hypocrite

The mods will be banning misogynistic bigots, such immature attitudes from pseudo-men will not be tolerated here.

>>15027166
If that was true, how come women have yet to make an impact in the modern scape
Even their best of the best is just discount joyce

>>15027166
Women’s inability to entertain themselves is not men’s problem

>>15027265
how many men have impacted modern landscape? Right now quality of work between men and women is more or less on the same level.

>>15027249
>transendentally aesthetic
what a cumbersome term

>>15027293
Delilo, Pynchon, Mccarthy, and Burroughs(fuck DFW he's a hack) are all exceptional writers and are all modern, and that's just naming americans

>>15027166
You can’t share space with women
They want to put up curtains and they want you to stop flapping to tranny porn

>>15027322
>pynchon
lol

>>15027173
haha

>>15027347
Whether you like the post-modernist or not, he's a master stylist

Women are pathetic desu. I wish they weren't, but they are.

>>15027166
F*moids have no value beyond taking dick.

>>15027166
>women
>held back
>when you can carry a supercomputer in your pocket and write virtually anything you want with free education
Yeah it was patriarchy that held women back. Right

>>15027321
How about this. Its fun and has a bit of taboo truth, even if exagerated.

>>15027166
It's not tiring, it's fucking gay. There's nothing gayer in this world than a man who spends his most virile years of youth going on and on and on about how bad women are, how repulsive they are, how terrible they are in every way, while simultaneously singing endless praises to the honor, strength, kindness, intelligence, beauty and lovability of men, men, men, men.
It's so fucking gay, unfathomably gay, the gayest thing in the universe - at this point, I'd say it's even gayer than just sucking a dick once or twice because of the endless persistence and repetition.

Why didn't women just write shit anonymously like the pearl poet did

>>15027438
Keep seething f*moid.
Homosex is the final redpill.

>>15027438
What's your point?

Why does it feel like I'm on R*ddit right now?

>>15027166
>still wrote decent books

>>15027507
ever heard of woolf, plath, conor?

Society isn't sexist, evolution is. Men and women are different because they didn't have the same roles over the HUNDREDS OF MILLENIA during which men HAD to be creative, strong, intuitive, resistant, to feed women who just had to find good partners and raise children. You can't erase a hundred thousand years of having to know how to run around in the woods to find food without dying with just a mere 10,000 years of sedentary civilization. Men are unironically more creative and ambitious than women, and better at science, and better at physical feats. Don't blame men if women are not as good, blame nature. Women are better than men in a few fields, but creativity isn't one of them.

>>15027166
You're right. I wish this board was more inclusive to women.

>>15027519
>plath

>>15027224
>men with their frail masculinity just can’t handle these them powerful women sweetie
This truly is the 4chan.org/reddit/

>>15027519
Woolf is just joyce but worse in just about every way

>>15027627
>women who just had to find good partners and raise children
That's actually not so easy as you may think. Death rate for mothers durring birth and their children was really high. The amount of time needed to have a functional household back in the day was more than two times higher than now.

>>15027173
>tl;dr
how will OP ever recover

>>15027249
lol @ this word salad throwing around german idealism vocab they don't understand

>>15027438
Lmao @ women seething at men grasping what they can't possibly grasp

>>15027519
Virginia Woolf exemplifies everything that is wrong with "female writers". She has it all : infamously cunty and resentful, had everything fall into her lap (her UC heritage and her husband owning a publisher surely didn't hurt, on that we all can agree, I think), and even at her very best she's a discount version of the man she hated with all her heart.

>>15027465
>>15027489
>>15027901
gay

>>15027921
>infamously cunty and resentful
I believe the term you are looking for is based.
>had everything fall into her lap
Who cares? Relieve yourself of ressentiment.
>and even at her very best she's a discount version of the man she hated with all her heart.
Nope, Woolf blows Joyce the fuck out of the water, and Joyce remains a man who is only lauded by pedantic academics and twenty-two year old try-hards. A queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples is the single greatest characterization of the soul of an entire work that has ever been uttered in the history of mankind.

>>15027946
>Woolf blows Joyce the fuck out of the water
wtf am i reading

>>15027979
Something that is probably heterodox from the opinions you've gained from reading shitty threads, "greatest literature of all time" blogs and <80 books in your entire life.

>>15027921
>had everything fall into her lap
you need to be poor to write good?

>>15028008
what is your criticism of Joyce?

>>15028010
No, but you don't need to write well to be popular if you are the kind of vapid socialite with connections that Woolf was.

>>15027921
Be silent bigot

>>15027166
shut up

>>15027946
>Woolf blows Joyce the fuck out of the water
W*men actually believe this

>>15027946
Lmao look at this retard, he actually thinks woolf is in anyway on the same level as joyce
>b-but my professor said...
yeah yeah go back to reading your cuntty third rate proust

>>15028015
The Gilbert and Linati schemas are testaments to a failed artwork.
>“I’ve put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that’s the only way of ensuring one’s immortality.”
He knew what he was doing, which increases the severity of his crime. He wrote for pedantic academics. The Sirens chapter has the beauty that Woolf so effortlessly masters. But Joyce is not interested in it. He is merely interested in illustrating that he is capable of it, and that he disdains it. Clever, all too boring and clever, he has tied himself to the mast. So clever. Academia loves clever.

>>15028111
Not him, but fuck off. Ulysses is just as enjoyable for the everyman as it is for the academic.

>>15028111
Holy shit this nigga got filtered lmao
Imagine hating an author because he put TOO MUCH THOUGHT INTO HIS WORKS PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>15028075
Want to see a picture of my uncircumcised dick?

>>15028084
>presents the academically heterodox opinion
>is accused of being academically conformist
You're special.

To both of you: go ahead and extol the virtues of Joyce for me, cretins. Try, just fucking try. Sing in praise of the chief among the pimple scratchers with your creaky voices.

>>15028126
The 22-year old tryhard is not the everyman. It is enjoyable for him, and for the academic, as I initially stated.
>>15028129
You'll learn to articulate your thoughts some day.

>>15027166
I get that this is bait but I don't understand why some women actually really talk like this. It's like they're elevating nagging to a form of political activism. "You should _let_ me do X-Y-Z. You should _let_ me be part of _your_ group."

Why can't women just do their own fucking thing? Is not their own validation good enough for them? Do they need to have the male gaze on them in order for what they do to be real? "Why don't you recognise me?!" Why would men's recognition be the highest goal of certain form of female centric activism?

>>15028147
>To both of you: go ahead and extol the virtues of Joyce for me, cretins. Try, just fucking try. Sing in praise of the chief among the pimple scratchers with your creaky voices.

>>15028164
Bro you're only stated reason for hating joyce is quite literally 'he's too complex'
Joyce writes in a way that forces the reader to put in just as much as he did and he wrote everything with a purpose(hence the schema), deciphering his intents his half the fun of ulysses(the other half being his mastery over style)

>>15028129
>this nigga criticizing the cook who made a casserole with lasagna, spaghetti, fish, pizza, hotdogs, burgers, ratatouille, 80 different types of cheese, oatmeal, yoghurt, cereal, coffee, plum pudding and marmite in it for using to many ingredients, LMAO
I don't agree with that other anon, but come on bro, at least try.

>>15028181
The same reason why they cry about having to compete with "dead white males". 99% of women perceive literature as yet another method to accrue social capital and attention, and so they seethe at the attention paid to the dead white males, because it's attention that could be paid to them instead of the dead who have no use for it.

>>15028147
>liking white male authors is the academic heterodox
gaslighting faggot

>>15027173
holistically based

>>15027166
If one can subjugate another then there are not equal, the fact this was true for all society all over the world with most of them never even being in cotanct should tell you something. Women are inferior if you try and compare them to men if your only context to that is what men are good at. If you're trying to actually rate women then you should at least use a proper scale and judge them by what their actually supposed to be, subservient, loyal, animated, cheerful, wholesome, virtuous etc. Women can bring out the better in men by generaly being the more hopeful, positive sex and there's a reason why so many of them have been used as muses.

>>15028186
Your failure was expected.
>>15028192
>Bro you're only stated reason for hating joyce is quite literally 'he's too complex'
No, it is the flippant disregard of beauty that is my main anger with Joyce, which is so clearly illustrated in the Sirens chapter, as I mentioned.
The issue with the schemas does not have so much to do with complexity, as they do with the fact that Joyce is veering right at the edge of private madness (this is the real import of Joyce's relation to modernism btw, the encyclopedic had already been done to death and is trite as fuck) - there's no place for that sort of private madness (which he definitively crosses over to in FW, no fucking wonder his daugther became a schizophrenic) in a coherent aesthetic theory.

>>15028209
Anon a food analogy doesn't fit here, it's a fucking book, specifically one written in episodic format
You can go back and dissect it chapter by chapter any time you want, it'll never go bad. This is what makes ulysses an ever green novel that's different every time you read it

>>15028218
Which university literature department are you at? Or did you come to your opinions via social media and imageboards?

>>15027249
Now THAT'S what I call phallogocentrism

>>15028259
>No, it is the flippant disregard of beauty that is my main anger with Joyce, which is so clearly illustrated in the Sirens chapter, as I mentioned.
Joyce displays beauty literally all over the novel: nestor, hades, wandering rocks, cyclopse, circe, penelope, it's just different types of beauty with different appeals. Your taste must ne incredibly stunted if you can't see this, it's like saying the only beautiful scene in hamlet is to be or not to be

>>15027921
lmao none of this has anything to do with the quality of her writing.

Agreed OP. /lit/, while it's always been shit, used to be almost a haven from the bigoted degeneracy of the other boards. It's been sad watching it become infected. Half the time I feel like I'm just browsing /pol/ but with books.

I cant name many respected thinkers in all of history that respected women, how could you? Even the buddha knew they'd just mess shit up

>>15028245
This is some seriously unreflective smoothbrain shit. The whole post is just pandering to the most obvious stereotypes, you are literally an NPC who thinks in terms of stock characters.

> judge them by what their actually supposed to be
Fuck you and your dumbass inductive fallacies. I bet could kill you with one punch

>>15028129
He didn't put thought into his works, he put thought into what would be discussed endlessly by pseuds and wrote according to that

>>15028111
(checked) I agree that Joyce is too "clever" and watches himself write in his later works, but Dubliners alone shits on most Woolf. She lacks precision, it feels so muddled and whimsical.

>>15028259
>there's no place for that sort of private madness in a coherent aesthetic theory
Madness is the definition of genius when it come to coherent style in my opinion.

both Woolf and Joyce are overrated and were unpleasant sheltered humans, but at least Joyce knew what he was doing

>>15028353

>>15028376
Tell me how that post isn't one big inductive fallacy. Go on, do it. Wilful ignorance is no excuse.

>>15028359
Joyce wrote the schema for his personal friends and devouted years of his life to writing ulysses, he put thought into it

>>15027166
Women care about gay social stuff only
Men care about cool aspergers stuff

>>15028336
this

>>15028245
>If one can subjugate another then there are not equal
I won't read past this. Inherently flawed reasoning. That would mean British people are the most supreme of all because of the countries they occupied.

>>15028374
>both Woolf and Joyce are overrated and were unpleasant sheltered humans, but at least Joyce knew what he was doing
Joyce's personal letters don't really indicate him being THAT bad. Virgina's are just filled with never ending resentment

>>15028351
How would they respect women if you don't even give women the opportunity to flourish dumb fuck

Can we all at least agree - misogynists and non-misogynists alike - that Flannery O'Connor was a fantastic writer, even by male standards?

>>15027166
Women should stop trying to be men. They're not. They'll never be as good as men at stuff men were meant to do. That doesn't mean that women are inferior to men, they just have different purposes. Women create great men. Even Napoleon said he wouldn't have been the man he was without his mother.

>>15028417
Of course
>>15028415
>allowed to flourish
Theres an implied weakness in that statement, why arent we seeing much from females since their "emancipation"

Everyone posting in this thread deserves to die (I do not necessarily exclude myself)

>>15028423
>stuff men were meant to do
>they just have different purposes
Why is it such a common theme for men to make invoke the is/ought problem every time they're trying to allocate a place for women? There is no definitive "purpose" for either. Stop making these retarded claims and cement your argument on firmer ground.

>>15028469
based and omnicidepilled

>>15028417
always some fag with o’connor. like clockwork

>>15028484
t. no taste because god forbid talented women should be acknowledged

>>15028484
Cuz this place has plebbitors in here.

>>15028469
We'll all die eventually, to die is the only human right

How do we make /pol/ leave?

>>15027224
Men kept women out of creative fields because, for the majority of human civilization, women had to stay home and care for offspring while men went out into the world to learn , gather food, and adapt to new threats
Stay mad

>>15028423
>meant to do

What spook of an authority are you even referring to? An authority that holds up to scrutiny I presume?

>>15028469
You mean bio-gassed to death along side the cities they live, yeah?

>>15028524
I don't know, but its exhausting. All I want is old /lit/ back where it wasn't just threads like:
>"Books about why women enjoy rape?"
and a picture of an attractive/busty woman every 5 minutes. Does anyone actually think these threads produce valuable discussion?

>>15028543
The jezebelle threads are just hedonist try to spread their doctrine

>>15028496
i don’t shit on o’connor, but rather the sad, insecure little creatures who bring her up as a woman it’s ”okay” to like because the hivemind told them she writes about Real Shit Like a Man

>>15028571
Her stories are great and it's a joy to watch the main characters realize their faults and fail to overcome them. Fuck u buddy

>>15028543
its not about discussion anymore, its all for the (you)s
>>15028562
youre part of the problem buddy

>>15028524

better moderation

>>15028571
You are an immense piece of shit. I'm simply sharing an author that I like, it has nothing to do with whether or not she "writes like a man". What the fuck is your problem?

>>15028455
>Theres an implied weakness in that statement
Of course you jelly brained peasant, did you spill pre-cum figuring that out? They're physically weaker, doesn't mean it'll be the same in other areas
Also, men that are actually physically stronger than women don't make these posts. The ones that actually look pic related, who won't be able to overpower women 10 years younger than him make posts like hurt durr men superior.

>>15028622
sure man

>>15027173
based and red foreman pilled

>>15027173
oof, that's a yikes for OP

>>15027174
/pol is jockeying for that spot

>>15027265
Besides Shakespeare, Joyce is the height of English literature. The second best male novelist is also only ever discount Joyce. Seems like an unfair comparandum

>>15028650
why do you suppose that is, because the higher men simply KNOW they are superior in every way and dont feel the need to compensate because their very existence makes the statement for them?

>>15027519
>women always referencing plath
>lazy broad who sat in her room and cried
Can’t make this shit up

>>15028650
Fuck you simp I'm jacked and my penis is massive, the guys in your pic worship women

Women trying to write anything of significance dealing with the male experience is just as the inverse is: misguided and futile.

I would never waste my time reading a woman's view on individualist philosophy because it would never apply to me.

That being said women can be fine artists and the retards on this board that say otherwise are just bitter or ignorant.

>>15027898
Not even reddit, but twitter. What has this board come to?

>>15027166
>Muh patriarchy
>REE Woman can be just as good as men! If not better!

Take your bait back to Tumblr.

>>15028619
The holy grail of every board. Does it even exist?

>>15027946
>Woolf blows Joyce the fuck out of the water
I think Joyce has a tendency to be overrated slightly but this is an embarrassing take.

>>15028111
>complaining that an author puts thought into his works and require prior knowledge to fully understand
The absolute state of /lit/, we must be getting raided rn or we need to seriously increase gatekeeping

>>15029301
>>15028359

>>15029250
>Woman can be just as good as men
You're right, that's a bait. They can be a lot better in reality.

>men restricted women from education
from colleges, yes, but not from the arts. During the most gender oppressive periods of history young women from wealthy families, in cultures across the world, were encouraged to study the arts and foreign languages. The oppression of women would explain why female authors weren't published, but it wouldn't explain why they didn't write anything. The real question is, with all that leisure time, and with access to libraries, why didn't women write anything?

>>15029368
>The real question is, with all that leisure time, and with access to libraries, why didn't women write anything?
Read Woolf's A Room Of One's Own. It deals with this exact question.

>>15029331
But that was never in doubt. I don't know what stick you sat on, and how it managed to snake its way from your cavernous ass into your brain stem, but this whole thread is an exercise in "I don't like thing that most other people also don't like."

The candor of your replies smack of female chauvinism; the kind of reflexive, cartoonish pride that comes from genuine hurt, and can therefore be excused for existing but not for persistence. Yes, Woolf was a good author. Joyce was also a good author. That this has to be mutually exclusive is indicative only of your bad faith, your lack of education in either matter, and your trollish aims. Good luck with whatever it is you're going through.

>>15029388
no way I'm not reading a book written by a fucking women, I've got better things to do with my time.

>>15028533
And what is this rock solid explanation based on then? What you feel to be true, based on "super obvious facts that are obvious to anyone who really tries to think about it" ? I wonder where those obvious facts came from?

>>15028541
He means god. It's always god or nature with these types, despite the fact that the present state of things is also the result of equilibrium of natural systems.

>>15029414
>facts are patriarchy
holy shit, i thought you people were memes.

>>15029411
Stop fishing for "based" (you)s, moron. You asked a question which would be best answered from the horse's mouth.

>>15029418
Yikes, I guess reading comprehension isn't a required skill? The point I was making was his claims were not based on facts, but vague feelings. Though I'm sure he rationalizes it to be 'something I learned in biology class in middle school or something.'

>>15028704
The Canterbury Tales and Pilgrim’s Progress are both superior to anything Joyce has penned.

>>15029431
>yikes
jesus fuck, you can't help yourself.

>>15029444
Ignoring the argument and attacking the man, the way all people do when their logic is unassailable rofl. The real problem here is that I can't help _you_.

>>15029455
>attacking the man
im-fucking-plying

man-facts bad, women no rear children, woman-facts good

there, your argument distilled. fuck off.

>>15029468
Your "facts" weren't man-facts, they were man-feelings, _that_ is my argument distilled. Your argument is a classic one: it's "more natural" therefore it's "good," though this is often done with little to no understanding of nature. Again, where did your "facts" come from? Specifically? I am asking.

>>15029391
Do you think you write good?

>>15029503
Didn't you just get done lecturing someone about ignoring the argument? Again, I'm sorry about whatever trauma you've obviously gone through. I genuinely hope you find more healthy ways of working through it than trolling on 4chan.

what's my argument

>>15029578
I was lecturing someone about ignoring the argument, not him, but to be fair I also think your writing sounds unnatural, like someone desperately trying to live up to a concocted intellectual self-image.

>>15029616
...ok?

>>15029636
I don't think it's bad necessarily, just dial it back in a little.

>>15029654
Is there any more obvious tell of trying to live up to a concocted intellectual self-image than giving unsolicited writing advice to strangers on the Internet?

Or are we still pretending you're not trolling?

>>15029669
It sounds bad, we are not belittling you for amusement, I am just telling you as an impartial third party that it sounds incredibly strained. You aren't coming across as well read, reasoned, sharp, you are coming across as young and desperate. I don't really care how that makes you feel, and I am on this site to amuse myself, so yeah I am not going to pretend that it's a little fun to call you out, but it's also the truth. So yeah, do with that what you will.

>>15027173
Significantly based

>>15027293
>Right now quality of work is the same
Oh yes tell me how Megan Boyle is comparable to Javier Marias. Women can't write.

>>15029762
Implying shitty make writers don't exist

>>15029831
Yes bad male writers exist, but the point is, among the spread of legendary or even good writers, females are rare, and with good reason. Females simply don't have the intellectual capacity to make an isomorphism from the intuition in their brain into language. Notable female writers like Woolf and Eliot and the like are the exception that proves the rule. I concede that most men are not good writers either, but most people are not good writers, period. What I and the other anons are saying is that almost all GOOD writers are male. Also if you want to convert people to the church of female writing, calling them sexist and antagonizing them isn't the best start.

>>15029901
>exception
If there are exceptions, you lose your ground.

>>15029901
> """exception that proves the rule"""
> delicate flower feels antagonized

Unemployed people, murderers, basement-dwellers, and homeless people are all almost all male too. Really makes you think, huh?

>>15029932
>if there are exceptions you lose your ground
I wouldn't call a handful of female writers among the sea of super-talented male writers "losing ground," but if it helps you justify reading books about fat teen lesbians, so be it. You sound incredibly angry. You should smile more, sweetheart ;^)

>>15029951
>I wouldn't call a handful of female writers among the sea of super-talented male writers
Exactly the point addressed in the post.

>>15029966
>Exactly the point addressed
What point? That male writers are "losing ground?" No I don't think so honestly. There's plenty of modern male authors that are doing more interesting things than "A thousand white women" "City of Girls" "My Vagina" "Memoirs of my vagina" "The book about women" "Sex" "Women and Sex" "An Epic poem about my body positive polycule" "My periods: A novel" "Sexism: Essays" "The Misogyny Lectures" "Narrative of a used tampon" and so forth. I suppose you'll tell me that publishing has something to do with it? You're not suggesting that women are better because they get published more, because, oh no! If you made that point then that would mean that when men got published more, they were better than women! Publishing has nothing to do with it. Now that there is no barrier to literature (ebooks), people gravitate to the books they like the most. As for bean-flicking Harlequin romances, women are better at writing those, no question. But as for actual literature, men will always be generally better than women, just like how we are stronger and smarter. It's just a fact of life. How's that student loan debt, Sweetie? Was that English degree worth it?

>>15028027
What have you read by Woolf, out of interest?

>>15029411
God, you're so smart. Bet you have to fight the women off your cock

>>15029762
Tell me how any translator right now lives up to Anne Carson

>>15030633
It gets tiring but that's the price you pay from smelling so virile and intelligent

>>15028619
Why do /leftypol/ trannies always want to transform this place into redd*t? Hell, why is the left in general so insistent on censorship?

>>15029418
Are you stupid or merely pretending?

>>15027173
This is fucking funnier than it has any right to be

>>15031273
Newfag, /lit/ was always the bulwark against the retardation of the rest of the site. It has nothing to do with left or right, and everything to do with having fucking standards. Stop trying to drag it into the shit with the low IQ boards like /b/ or /pol/.

>>15031414
Ah yes, the old guard surely would stand for turning this place into reddit 2.0. Fuck off. Who do you think you're fooling?

>>15031441
I'm not trying to fool you, newfag. I'm trying to nudge you towards the idea that /lit/ wasn't always such a debased and degenerate shithole dominated by guenon shitposting and non-literature related "why do women enjoy rape?" threads every 5 minutes. But you wouldn't know that, because you've only been here since the degeneration began. You are part of the problem.

>sexism

>>15031441
only you are fooling yourself by thinking this board is /pol/ 2.0, fucking subhuman

>>15027224
>Men DID keep women out of creative fields because their masculinity is too weak to handle seeing a woman producing the stuff as them, did they not?

And what is this rock solid explanation based on then? What you feel to be true, based on "super obvious facts that are obvious to anyone who really tries to think about it" ? I wonder where those obvious facts came from?

Women are dumb whores who want to get raped.

>>15031414
/tv/ is the most intellectual board tho. While they have a high count of plebs their creativity is unmatched

most women are retarded
take a peek at the would-be-comedy twitter takes made very often by women who are involved with the "literary culture" of now
between the standard whining about racism and misogyny there's very often also something in the sense of "I had to look up that word and that sentence never ended" slipped in very casually, as if one of the many problems
but it is the main problem for them and it should be your main takeaway from that, they are too cognitively impaired to process let alone create first rate literature, and cope by whining about problematic attitudes

>>15031674
>cope by whining about
your post is nothing but incessant whining. Why should we take you seriously when you're just as effeminate and retarded as the women you criticise?

>>15031685
i am merely explaining the fact that the so called patriarchy is not responsible for women being retarded
cope harder roastie

>>15030032
I mean the main post

>>15027166
Everyone on this board has read Aristotle and Schopenhauer. It's impossible to respect women after that.

>>15027249
funny and true

>>15027898
1) dumb and incorrect in your assessment
2) obviously pettily refusing to acknowledge the craftsmanship of a reasonably well-crafted apercu because it was made by an ideological opponent
3) unfunny humorless uninteresting one-note response instead of crafting something superior
4) ironically doing exactly what he was jokingly and good-naturedly but still legitimately criticizing

dumb + humorless + bitter + missing the joke + contributing nothing yourself aside from a snide and obviously emotionally motivated "lol ummmm k" response = you're a woman

learn to fit in. you are too emotional and too bitter and it stands out to men (who don't socialize by manipulating each other in this way). if you learn to fit in on 4chan i guarantee you will become happier and healthier in other ways. protip to get you started: don't post while you're on the rag

>>15027946
>Woolf blows Joyce the fuck out of the water
haha lmao imagine the mental processes behind forming the decision to type and post this

>>15028147
one random word of Finnegans Wake has more merit than the whole oeuvre of Woolf, the comparison itself would be an insult to Joyce's work.

>>15031492
Nice, and also accurate. This entire thread is people shouting about their baseless impressions, though yes in some cases for mockery.

>>15032036
You clearly can't. Try reading some more books, you'll develop a sense of taste and aesthetic appreciation along the way.

>>15032054
If you're going to respond, could you try not doing it in dead clichés that are absolutely devoid of information?

>>15027173
Based as fuck

>>15033145
You got btfo above, they have full rights to laugh at you

>>15027173
Ludicrously and unequivocally based

>>15032054
>one random word of Finnegans Wake has more merit than the whole oeuvre of Woolf
Ulysses is one of the best works of arts ever produced. But Finnegans Wake is pretentious, unreadable garbage. You don't get it and are just trying to make yourself sound smart to a bunch of retards on an anonymous forum; and you're failing miserably.

>>15033244
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Skeleton_Key_to_Finnegans_Wake

>>15033244
be logically consistent. Why would the same author that produced one of the best works of arts write pretentious garbage in another book? It's the same personality that wrote both.

>>15033395
Yeah, but Ulysses was before he started to plug heroin up his ass with an oral syringe. His writing ability sort of sloped off after that.

>>15027424
Jesus Christ this board sometimes lmao

Isn't that because has more men writers that they are good....like...thefuck. most men are bad in writing...people. we have to cut this man/woman shit, because it does not matter. it's just organism, the body only exist for reproduction, the being, the mind with the 'soul' (refer it as you want), is what matter. I understand that has a lot of idiot women but hello? are most men, geniuses, amazing, powerful beings? no, they are idiot too. in the end, the only thing that matter is what you do, what you want to create, experience, study and understand. if you go out of this bubble, you will find amazing both sex authors, creators, and beings. if you look at shit and keep trying to find something else in it ,you will not, you will be angry, and if you keep doing it, digging idiot people books and opinions, you will start thinking everyone or most are like that (that goes for bad female authors, and males too), but if you look for more, you will find better...if you don't keep in the common sense, the popular layer, the bullshit of everyday life on internet. and much more.

>>15033469
>it's just organism
wisdom

>>15033469
Capitalize you fucking nonce

>>15032004
Holy fuck this post is cringe
Well done sir

>>15031965
Both retarded philosophers. But common, what I would wait, people suck theirs virile perfect statues till today.

>>15031414
>>15031460
>waaaaaah this board isnt mythink enough please delete and ban all wrongthink posters that will fix the board

Pathetic, fuck off back any other site, you vermin can't help but infest every little minuscule corner of internet. 4chan is literally built in such a way that differing opinions get signal boosted by (you)s, a site where you can't get banned or censored for opinions, and you claiming its a fucking echo chamber? Its literally the least echo-chambering popular site on the internet, that doesn't mean its perfectly even on opinions, but its still the least shit in these terms. just fucking type words nigger, there is no system in place stopping you.

op is bait btw

>>15027224
so wait, are women still being mistreated by men in modern times? if so, can you give examples? if not, why are you bringing up stuff that happened 200 years ago and acting like it's still going on today?

>>15033853
see you later /pol/tard

>>15033469
An ESL woman wrote this post. You must speak proper English, not this muk-muk talk.

You could have written a book
You could have been the greatest author of all time
You could have downloaded some novel writing software for free at any time and showed the patriarchy what's what
But you didn't
Instead you complained to a bunch of anonymous faggots about oppression blah blah blah
No one here gives a shit
People review books based on how good the book is, not on how good the theoretical book from theoretical author would have been if history was different in X, Y, Z ways

Tl;dr write a book. Nobody is stopping you

How did this thread survive for so long, tf.

>>15027173
Based and what a gentleman

>>15033395
I don't think you know what being logically consistent means.

>Why would the same author that produced one of the best works of arts write pretentious garbage in another book?
Are you saying it's impossible for a writer to have written good books and then to write a bad one?

>>15033244
t. filtered

>>15027173
>Hello? Based deparment

>>15028619
go to Reddit if you want that

So how did this work? If a man saw a woman writing or painting would he grab them by the arm and physically stop them from continuing. I dont get how this happened?

>>15036404
They would pelt them with small stones, bottle caps, marbles, etc., until they stopped. It's called negative reinforcement, and it's highly effective.

>>15027173
That was a good one not gonna lie

>>15027173

>>15027874
>amount of time needed to have a functional household back in the day was more than two times
So, what, 2 x 3 = 6? Still less than my workday.

Women have had times of not being oppressed, they still have only turned up Elizabeth Barrett Browning in all history as a decent read as far as I know. They usually have much easier lives and with your precious democracy you'd think you'd have it easy enough. Maybe you need to go shake your ass for someone

>>15027166
As a fag I feel I have something in particular to contribute to this debate. For one I , more than any other category of person, have the least reason to hate women. Unlike another woman, I cannot be conceived of as in any sort of competition for embodying a more desirable concept of woman, e.g. "that bitch" neither do I have any reason to begrudge her for stealing away a desirable man, unless he happened to be bisexual, which is rare enough for me to see past it. I would venture to wager that the primary reason for misogyny is the same reason I hate (or more accurately subconsciously resent) superhot gay guys who don't want me: they don't want me. Can we really consider the heterosexual womanizer to be a hater of women? Quiet the contrary, he delights in women, and and makes a pastime of making them feel good. It is the would-be womanizer that hates women the most, and for no good reason besides they are viewed purely in view of sexual purposes, and are beyond access as such. There is nothing wrong with viewing women in terms of sexual purposes, indeed I would not be here if otherwise. And wanting to fuck women in some way is an admission that you want to like them. It is in being unable to fuck them, or to fuck this one in particular, that you come to dislike them. Systematic unfuckability is therefore the most likely indicator of a virulent misogyny.

As a personal side note, the inference I have made to my personal life to that of misogynistic heterosexual men in general does not apply to all cases, nor does my own particular casual resentment of whatever hot man doesn't want to fuck me translate into a hatred of all men, attractive or otherwise. This particular extra abundance of hatred has superadded to it, an extra content of desiring from women more than just complacent sexual objects, but a form of compliant labor and obedience. Not only does the misgonist hate women for not wanting to fuck him, he hates them for not being able for him to complete his idea of being a man by the act.

Why do you expect women to write stuff, even more, stuff that You specifically like.
Do you demand for every person you meet to have written something that you consider of value?, You yourself have not written anything of value, ever. If not, why do you think women need to write for you to acknowledge them as equals.
You worship these writers and philosopers and see that most of them have a dick, you have a dick as well, that means you are like them. "These women, oh these women do not have a dick like me and these philosophers. And they have the audacity to not sleep with me, clearly they are inferior to me, for I am capable of great thinking, for now only capable but I am sure of it since I have a dick, I am so fucking smart"
That's you, that's how you sound.

>>15027166
-isms aren't real

>>15027173
immensely based

Women have smaller brains, it has been scientifically proven.

>>15027173
monstrously based

>>15027173
Manly based

>>15039144
>Not only does the misgonist hate women for not wanting to fuck him, he hates them for not being able for him to complete his idea of being a man by the act.
This is a good point. Man is entirely dependent on woman to give him his shape. But I think it extends beyond the sphere of sexuality too. If a woman refuses to submit to her predetermined roles (wife, mother, caregiver, etc.) then a man is unable to form a complete image of himself in the archetype of man (head of the household, breadwinner, disciplinarian, etc.). By shunning traditional roles, women are effectively impacting man's ability fulfil his own, leading to an excess of resentment and hatred. This is the problem with archetype-dependent fulfilment: archetypes always come in pairs, and if one is unable to meet the criteria, then the other by definition is inadequate too. We would be wise to do away with our dependence on such constricting moulds altogether.

>>15039144
I am gay because I hate women

>>15027166
I could break your neck with ease while pissing and shitting myself and screaming my lungs out to my primordial father
caseclosed

>>15027173
Holy fucking based

>>15027173
Amiably based.

All works outside of philosophy are necessarily drivelous and not worth discussing. When a woman can attain the level of intellectual rigor of, for example, Kant, it will be to the benefit of humankind. It would appear to me, though, that the societal pressures and prerequisites needed to develope in this fashion intellectually are things that woman simply cannot, by virtue of our biological preferences exacerbated by existence within liberal and capitalist structures, attain

It's not that women are incapable of being good writers, it's that they're incapable of being influenced by the crowd. They believe what they're told to believe so they can't help but create imitative garbage.

>>15035090
>Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

Achktually, this is profoundly smart, I read on wikipedia that what Joyce did is that he took all words for thunder and combined them, like a pure genius. I think that this is the finest piece of clothing the emperor is even wearing.

>>15027166
don't post this unhistorical ignorant trash you virulent misandrist loser femcel. women are shit at most things, passable at their best, and that's okay.

>>15027166
/lit/ is literature discussion for the dudes that get told to quiet down in university classes

>>15040500
You clearly haven't read past the very first page, so why should anything you say regarding the book be valued in any way? It must be hard having the pea-brain

>>15027173
Fpbp

>>15028186
This has to be self aware right? Where is this from?

>>15040911
being told to stop leering at the female students more like

>>15040993
You've read less then 30 books in your entire life, and half of them were genre fiction.

Sexism is not real.

>>15041533
Lol no

>>15027173
lmao

FUCK WOMEN
FUCK MINORITIES
AND FUCK JANNIES

Imagine not being able to pee standing up AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

>>15044416
>tfw you realize a stupid w*man is reading this very post right now
>tfw you picture the inside of her w*man pea brain trying to comprehend literature or philosophy
>tfw with every word she read she has to stop and think about how she "feels" about it and text her fake w*men friends to talk about her "feelings"
>tfw for every page a w*man reads she has to talk to 5 other w*men about her feelings for 10 pages worth of text (each) or else she'll get "depressed" and start crying and saying things like "I'VE JUST HAD A REALLY BAD WEEK, OKAY"
>tfw suplexing w*men both figuratively and literally in any discussion of literature or philosophy

>>15039748
Keep crying out for daddy

>>15027173
Immensely based

I fucking love book-clubs and knitting! Gaining weight and reading the same mystery story with a different coat of paint is NOT a waste of time! My English degree was NOT a waste of money! If something is wrong with me it's the abstract conception of manhood and men that's at fault, not me! As a woman, I think I have no agency, and as a result I've fucking given up! But it's men's fault!! >:(

>>15039249
Based

>>15039305
It’s in proportion to body size

>>15027166
The equal cannot oppress the equal

>>15027173
potently based

>>15039636
>Man is entirely dependent on woman to give him his shape.

Gr8 b8 honestly lmao. Have a (you) for it. But more seriously, gay men, monks, incels, asexuals or simply regular men who outside of sex aren't moulded by any woman would debunk that notion. Woman are far more tied to their "gender roles" than men are & your notion of masculinity is pure projection.

>Do away with our dependence etc
Do I need to remind you why "there are no women on the Internet", especially when it comes to imageboards? You might rail against "maleness" being a sort of pseudo-genderless default assumption in interactions, but it came about for good reason, which is partly removing that dependency. If you get tired of it being too "make", go lurk on crystal or something for a while. Anyway (getting off track), you're assuming said roles are pure social construct free of biological or historical underpinnings. You've fallen for the Tabula Rasa delusion - no much how much you try to deconstruct gender roles, it won't work I because your assumptions are faulty. Less college neoliberal bourgie feminism please.

>>15047552
*male
Not make. Saged to not double bump.

>>15047552
>gay men, monks, incels, asexuals or simply regular men who outside of sex aren't moulded by any woman would debunk that notion
I meant in an archetypal sense, rather than literally. I said as much in my post, read more closely. A man who depends upon a rigid ideal of masculinity will feel it denigrated if the woman does not adhere to hers. This is exactly why the idea of female freedom poses a threat to the "nuclear family": it is the man who governs the household, and by rejecting that tradition, they are calling into question the assumption of male superiority. And also, incels are 100% moulded by women. Their entire identity revolves around the absence of women. Letting the absence of something dictate how you live your life is absolutely letting that objective leave a negative imprint on your self-identity.

>Woman are far more tied to their "gender roles" than men are
Well duh, because its the men who have spent thousands of years enforcing those gender roles. Men have never had to question their own gender identity, because they've always had the structural binary/dynamic between men and women to affirm their self-identity. Now that balance is being upset, many men are spiralling because they no longer have fixed certainty in the masculine ideal.

>You might rail against "maleness" being a sort of pseudo-genderless default assumption in interactions, but it came about for good reason, which is partly removing that dependency
This is such an unreflective attitude, holy shit. By erasing the female experience you think that is a "pseduo-genderless default"? How gullible do you think I am? If you truly wanted a "pseudo genderless" default, then masculinity needs to be erased, too. Otherwise its entirely a unilateral project.

>you're assuming said roles are pure social construct free of biological or historical underpinnings.
historical? Absolutely not, see above. gender roles have a concrete historical determination, but that doesn't mean they are justified. And as for biology, any claim about gender roles grounded in biology is simply falling into the trap of the is/ought problem.

>You've fallen for the Tabula Rasa delusion
And you accuse me of projection? lmao

>>15032004
mmmm good sir I tip my hat to thee, what a post you have made!
"if you learn to fit in on 4chan i guarantee you will become happier and healthier in other ways" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard

it's been 3 days and this bait thread hasn't died yet

>>15027173
Assiduously based.

>>15027173
Still fpbp

>>15047631
Think the jannies have finally realised that working for free is simply not worth the effort. good on them

>>15027166
test

>>15027173
eternally based

>>15027173
gloriously based

>>15028404
>that would mean british people are the most supreme of all

?? they make the top five, easily. Are you disputing that?

>>15027173
Bazed and retpilled.

>>15047622
Hole.