/lit/ - Literature

oh lordy

>>1917374

Well it's kind of true.

Ann Rice is a third rate writer of shitty erotica and pulp gay horror fiction. She is not a feminist philosopher. Fuck off.

>implying it wasn't just a watered down version of cretan social structure

This is true. Most social problems are created by men. I often do think that a female-dominated world would be more pleasant.

You have false illusions about females.

Women are equally aggressive and heavy minded, they simply care enough to hide it.

The reason men cause violence, war, etc. is because more men are in positions of power than women. It's ignorant to think that because women haven't started war yet they are more peaceful. Having worked in a restaruant (where cheap women gather to make a mess and give shitty tips), all I hear is backstabbing and gossip. Maybe the world would be more peaceful, but it certainly wouldn't be a happier place.

/lit/

I've been reading some Ken McLeod books,

and in "The Stone Canal", he makes a passing reference to a political party in Britain with aims remarkably similar to those espoused by OP, and OPs mental image of Ann Rice. This political party is so consumed by infighting that it never accomplishes anything and quickly dissolves. This reference makes a good point: not only are women just as susceptible to human faults and vices as men, but also that the proponents of ultra-femanist "men are useless" rhetoric are only worth a passing mention before being forgotten for the useless twits they are.

I think without these things, that is to live without these things, we would have to eliminate most humans and keep only those who aren't idiots, which are few. They should be used only to make decisions and teach children. I know this idea is from a work of fantasy fiction but it's a very philosophical work written by a man with some good ideas.

Anyone else agrees?

>generic troll trying to get us buttmad with ridiculous arguments that no one could ever seriously believe, generalizing half of the world's population as essentially more brutish than the other
>this thread is probably going to get dozens of mad replies

Just to get it out of the way, by chance
>implying if women had the physical and intellectual capability to do so they wouldn't have put themselves in positions of societal and physical dominance traditionally held by men and proceeded to commit exactly the same amount of violent crimes and wars that men have
>if not more due to the proven inclination of the female mind to emotion and spontaneity

>>1917465

Another sexist dumbass who thinks women are incapable and incompetent. MOVE ALONG.

>>1917486
If women are as capable as men give me a good reason why they have played second fiddle to men in 95% of societies that have ever existing. And no, tribal matriarchies where they would ask their grandmother to talk to the spirits for them are not valid examples of women showing ther equality.

Seriously, why is it that men were able to oppress women so badly? Women were all equal to men for all of history but just took their subjugation willingly because, why, psychological conditioning? Seriously, I am curious as to how the "women are on the exact same biological levels physically and intellectually as men" theory waves away the fact that men have always held the superior positions.

>>1917447

Maybe you should have worked somewhere other than KFC.

>>1917505

Women were seen as a valuable commodity because they bore children. Therefore they were protected and relegated to the home while the men hunted and farmed - so they could protect women from wild animals, the elements, and other men. Men put themselves in danger but women were seen as more important to be protected because of their capability to have children (also high levels of death in childbirth in early societies). That cultural conditioning existed well into the 19th century and lingered through part of the 20th.

i'm impressed that some of the /r9k/ refugees have learned to at least try to hide their trolls in trojan book discussions. it's like watching an evil artificial intelligence entity evolve itself.

although it's not really necessary - people here will bite on any fucking thing

>>1917554

No /r9k/ here.

The problem is that men's bodies make them clear cut candidates to committ abuse to women.

A man's very penis allows him to rape and it is with him every moment of the day. A man's sex instincts might boil up and cause him to behave in very nasty, harmful ways that would hurt and abuse others.

This is why society needs fewer men, or for men to be kept seperate from women so they can not harm them.

If there were fewer men--or no men, whatever--sure, society might be more peaceful. There would probably be fewer crimes like rape, murder, assault, and so on. But there would also be almost zero innovation in science, art, literature, philosophy, or anything else. It's like that movie, Equilibrium. You'd get rid of the dismal lows at the cost of the dizzying highs.

>>1917681
This. Not only that, but, assuming that they didn't initially, at some point, women will become like the men that OP makes them out to be of today. Also, it's a rather hypocritical and sexist notion to even suggest that men should only exist to be pretty boy sex toys.

But really, it's the mind, not the sexual organ, that determines how a person behaves.

>>1917538
So misogyny makes women weak? Good argument. I guess that is a step better than women are weak therefore men are misogynists. Your five and dime archaeology from the history channel probably neglected to tell you that prehistorically both men and women hunted except during times of birth, and even then they were around the hunt area. Women were not commodities they chose their mates based upon the ability to protect them during child birth, and to provide food etc.. If anything men were commodities. Think of it this way. men were like rams they fought each other to prove dominance and women chose among the most capable, and not severely wounded.
>>1917660
lol oh lord hey troll

I have read the book and took it in a more ironic way when Akasha wanted to wipe out most of the male population. The numbers would be alot greater than any war fought when she does this.

Your logic is pretty flawed when you say a world with less men would be more happy and peaceful. You just have to look at Akasha in the book even alive she was a complete douche to everyone and it was her that caused this whole thing in the first place. Not to mention she uses Lestat to kill off some men.

I loved the book and personally i am a male but just read your statements. Akasha is a female and she is lulling Lestat into killing like half of the world's population

>>1917732

A guy will do anything for a girl he gets a stiffy from.

Anyone who thinks there would be less conflict in the world if it were run by women doesn't know much about women.

Grow up.

>>1917756

Any man whose family is mostly women or that has had mostly female friends knows that they are closer and more functional as a society than men.

Guys look you all know this is a retarded discussion and you're just bashing it so if you're going to keep this up please sage it jesus christ we have so many bad threads up right now

>>1917963

>bad thread

I don't think you've seen a bad thread

>>1918817

Yes, I have and this is it.

I wonder what the person who went back and bumped all these shitty diluted /r9k/ threads at once is like irl

>>1919728

A dashing young man with a taste for poetry and fine wines.

only men should be able to head armed forces and declare war etc. because most of the soldiers are men

>>1917944
lol no

>>1919754

Females are more efficient marksmen and have better hand-eye coordination than men.

>>1917963
>>1917963
>>1917963
>>1917963
>>1917963
>>1917963
>>1917963
Glad somebody here still has some sense. Also:
>getting philosophy from vampire novels

>>1917944
I lol'd when I thought of my mom, who is admittedly dumb and kind of airheaded while being extremely confrontational, then of my dad who is calm, collected, polite, and amazingly intelligent and a natural leader, then of my sister, who is smart, but extremely spoiled, emotionally manipulative, and lazy as fuck.
What a fucking joke.

>I'm a man who can't get laid but still thinks of vagina so much that any owner of vagina must be innocent and perfect.

OR

>trolololololol

Um.

No.

Not really.

I mean you can say they were playing by mens rules, or women doing what they had to do in a mans world

But then what about this gentle damsel?

or these reasonable flowers of feminine grace

>>1919862
>>1919852
>>1919850
>>1919844
>>1919842
>>1919840
one, two, three, four, five, six, seveeeenn

trying to hard

and so on...

I'm not saying these women were bad, necessarily (well, maybe the Magdalene sisters...), but they showed themselves to be capable of behaving as forcefully and brutally as any male ruler ever did.

This is B.S. women are as nasty and warlike as men. We just have different battlefields. Look at school bullying today. Boys endure physical abuse from their peers while girls endure verbal abuse. A world of women wouldn't be better just a different pot of shit to stew in.

I rather live in a world with both genders then one. Personally, I don't care if men are the socially dominate gender - as a woman I still control the sex and thus the man.

all women think about is sex and relationships

few of them care about the sciences and anything like that.

Just look at the make-up industry, christ - there's nothing even half that absurd out there for men. If you want equality, be equal - don't just sit around bitching about it.

>>1919948
porn
watching sports

Okay, let's look at it this way:

Men are fucking AFRAID of getting hit on by queers. They will go to great length to keep queer homo faggots out of their lifes.

Girls have no problem with getting hit on by lesbians.

Now which do you think is the more tolerant sex?

>>1919972
>very philosophical work
>good ideas
>pulp trash

they see me trollan'
they hatin'

>>1919972
>current cultural behaviour is inherent to the genders!

therefore, females dislike science.

>Feminists complain endlessly about everything, yet world is still run by men.

Feels good to be superior.

>>1920015
Female's can't become super-saiyan either.

Another reason why women are inferior.