/lit/ - Literature

also I'm trans, if that matters

They get to observe women

>>22506272
Not really better, just different. Men will write male books, women will write female books. Their thought process is fundamentally different so things come out very differently. The important parts of a story are very different to men and women. If something in a female book is pleasing to a man, then that thing is probably not very important to the woman writing that book, and vice versa.

What is great to an intelligent woman will not be great to an intelligent man and vice versa. Expecting them to like the same thing is cruel and insane. Men and women are not the same, so why should be held to the same standards, or be expected to act the same, or to do the same thing, or like the books? Its ridiculous.

>>22506272
We’re WAY more sentimental. And not in a stupid superficial way where one wants to be so, but only in an authentic and automatic way.

The xx faction can only wrap their brains around themselves, and through those lens, interpersonal relationships, and nothing more. Now the Y guys deal directly with the world.

>>22506272
They're on average less sexually satisfied.

Forgot to add the pic

>>22506295
A woman wrote this. I can tell because it sucks.

>>22506309
>A woman wrote this.
Considering that
>Men and women are not the same
Is a statement that would get you in hot water today, that's unlikely. Its very anti-Feminist. That post is the sort of thing that gets followed up by arguing for removing women's rights and putting them all back in the kitchen because that's their natural role.

>>22506272
Men are fundamentally driven. To. Work.
Mastery involve the process of repetition and practice.
What woman are genetically born for is to produce offspring and nurture. While men are born to work basically.
In any kind of field, men is gonna dominate. (If its work related.) Teacher and care taker(i.e nurses and babysitter) are unique occupation where woman nurture are utilised. Other than that, men os gonna always be superior in work field because they

1. Work continously

2. Are more driven to work

>>22506316
>womEn are genetically born for is to produce offspring and nurture
Very few of them are doing that

Refractory period due to more intense orgasms.

>>22506272
Men have a higher chance of growing better functioning brains. It is rarer for female genius to develop. Perhaps it harkens back to ancient times and lies in woman's comparatively lethargic roles.

>>22506316
>teach women how to read
>abortion and sex with strangers become their highest virtue
Wow it's almost as if they do not care for being mothers and nurturing their offspring at all and this is only a myth pushed by innocent and reluctant tardcaths

>>22506325
I thought women had more intense orgasms?

>>22506272
As Naipaul once said... Women are too sentimental.
Not all of them, and not all sentimental writing is bad, but you can almost always detect when something was written by a woman, and women who write well usually write within a very masculine tradition. For instance, there are good women poets in the Renaissance (Stampa, Colonna) but they're writing very much within a main Petrachean frame of techniques and concepts. Likewise for female writers of detective stories and so on. As soon as women are really themselves, as Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath or Clarice Lispector are, it becomes sentimental and quite frankly childish. Their preoccupations are also too domestic, as if they're unable to leave their apartments, or go beyond the shopping mall. Compare Jane Austen with Melville, or Lispector with Celine... Say what you want about BAP, but he is right about the longhouse. Women's world, and their range of interests, are usually too small, regardless of how much "freedom" they have -- nowadays they have the freedom to go to work or be in academia, yet they just turn work itself, and academia itself, into extensions of the longhouse. Longhouse is their natural state, the only place they feel "safe" in. They can still be masters of domesticity, like Austen is, or masters of decent sentimental writing, like Elizabeth Browning, but their world seems to stop there.
Besides, language is not very good for feelings. Words are better in describing concrete objects and well-defined ideas. It's impossible to verbalize, e.g., the sentimental effects of a piece of music. Thus, if a writer is sentimental, the style quickly becomes vague, soft, "écriture féminine".
Although these are mere general tendencies, and there might be exceptions on both sides, I don't think I have ever read a proper epic or even a true adventure story in the classic sense (whether in prose or verse) written by a woman, and maybe this is beyond their reach. Listen to Emily Wilson reciting Homer and you will see. There is no reason for her to be so bad, so contrary to the spirit of Homer, and yet she is. It's as though there is some large wall between her and the epic spirit, something which she simply cannot see beyond, no matter how good her erudition and her knowledge of Greek are, something which even a teenage boy can instinctively feel yet seems to be completely alien to her. Some men can be like that too, of course. Noam Chomsky strikes me as an obvious case. He's very passive and inoffensive, soft in everything he does, physical fragility personified, very womanish. You see this type of man very often among academics of today.
Maybe some women could write an epic, women like Joan of Arc or Catherine de' Medici, but they're very rare so there are no examples in literary history yet. I doubt it, but there's no physical/biological reason why this should be 100% impossible, only uncommon.

>>22506272
Basically pic rel

>>22506341
The implication here is that truth depends on a consensus of actions and beliefs held by a group, and it doesn't. Otherwise the exact opposite of what your claim is would be just as true if enough women carried them out.

>>22506341
He missed the mark explaining that ever so much. Women first and foremost are born to breed. They are simple creatures and will extract much happiness from the rearing of children, but their baked in natural selection protocols foster confusing feelings of fear over fully committing. Giving them the liberties to abort pregnancy allows them to repeatedly simulate the most emotionally efficient part of this process, conception. In unbridled promiscuity, they experience sufficient satisfaction without committing to 9 months of gestation. In essence, casual sex is a surrogate for pregnancy. Many women's perceived lack of connection to their prenatal offspring, something they are keen to display during abortion, could be explained by an evolutionary need to safeguard the mental wellbeing of the birthing mother during complications such as still births and thus, keep her from being emotionally invested in the child until after a safe delivery.

>>22506361
They might have longer ones but men have higher peaks. Plus it's hard to take what women say or do seriously. (see: hysteria). I can't point you to any solid facts btw.

>>22506366
Extremely incel post lmao

>>22506272
Can't say I ever cared on way or another. It depends on the time. Marianne Moore and Elizabeth Bishop are among my favorites from last century. I suppose wealth and technology have more to do with it than you admit.

>>22506316
> Men are fundamentally driven. To. Work.
Mastery involve the process of repetition and practice.

The fuck kind of behaviourist mentality is this? If women are nuturers, men are competitors. Its not mans nsture to “work” lol. Biologically mans nature is to out compete other men in obtaining mates. Not to do blind work. At one time it was mostly just being physically the strongest. As our minds developed its also being the smartest. Mans desire to be great is rooted in being better than everyone. Literary fame drives more men to be great writers than women.

Women write in a more stream of conscious diaristic manner. But men wish to push boundaries and do something none has done better before. Though the true end of literature is escaping all of this, which very few men or women ever reach.

>>22506431
>blind work
Your word not his

>>22506341
>sex with strangers
Most ape species adopted promiscuity to avoid infanticide. Women cant help being hoes, they are biologically hardwired

>>22506272
Sabrina Nichole, former Playboy Bunny
I coom to her fairly often

>>22506439
Wow. She has a wonderful set of milkers

>>22506272
Nostalgia Dick

>>22506389
I had sex last Friday with a hot student.
Anyway, I'm South American. Having sex here is easy if you're good looking and upper middle class or richer, and not an autist...

>>22506439
Very well, but can the bitch write?

>>22506326
Yet I sense you have a bias against female outliers. Why neglect them? They're great fun.

>>22506295
>Not really better, just different
Stopped reading there

>>22506387
>but men have higher peaks.
I've never heard of a man convulsing and blacking out from orgasm.

How would you even measure the peaks of pleasure?

>>22506512
You don't because talking about private experience (redundant) is nonsensical.

>>22506295
What a useless post

>>22506272
>How do you write women so well?
>I think of a man, and I remove all reason and accountability
because men can believably write women, but almost never the other way around.

>>22506366
I don't really get the "sentimental" thing, are you saying writers like Celine are machines or what? I read journey to the end of the night and death on the installment plan and there is not a single page where Celine didn't say a "sentimental" thing, even if what he felt was disgust, fear or hate

>>22506389
seething 80IQ femoid

Too late for (You)s but I think it's simple

>men physically stronger
>back in time when only strength mattered
>it came to be that society and its values was founded by men
>men write better to these values and sensibilities
>even women are judged by these intrinsically man-centric values/criteria
>because women aren't men they're naturally "worse" at embodying what those qualities that were defined by men anyhow

If women founded society men would be considered overall worse writers

>>22506558
Basically écriture feminine, that kind of thing. When women are being themselves, and not following male-based convention, they will tend towards that. Women themselves recognize this, but they think it's good.

>>22506313
It’s damage control by a woman who is smart enough to realize feminism is the most profoundly retarded concept of all time but still refuses the finer corollaries of its rejection.

>>22506585
>If women founded society
that's kind of the kicker, isn't it? all modern societies were founded by men, built by men, and maintained by men. if a woman-founded society doesn't conform to men's sensibilities they simply don't participate, and women, being physically inferior, can't force them to, nor are women willing or capable of the heavy lifting required to build and maintain society themselves. to wit, modern western society is in freefall because the traditional exchange of exclusive access to a woman's sexuality for a man's labor and protection has been thrown out the window, and now women and their sensibilities run society and men are starting to check out of it because it doesn't benefit them.

men suffer more, and, in terms of intelligence, women have higher regression toward the mean

>>22506295

>>22506436
Wait. . .what? There some steps missing there. How does promiscuity prevent infanticide. can you elaborate?

>>22506523
Not always, but private experience has to be related to that which is outside of it for it to be worthwhile for others to read.

>>22506603
>they will tend towards that
What is "that"? Écriture féminine? It would appear you are using that in a somewhat technical sense and not literally saying feminine writing tends toward feminine writing. Wikipedia brings me to this:

>Écriture féminine, or "women's writing", is a term coined by French feminist and literary theorist Hélène Cixous in her 1975 essay "The Laugh of the Medusa".

Is this what you are getting at?

>>22506272
Wouldn't say one gender is "better" than the other. Depends on who you read imo.
Good female writers (Hobb comes to mind) generally have better dialogue / characterization than male writers, because women are generally better with understanding and processing the emotions of others. Good male writers (PKD, Asimov,) have a much better grasp on overarching plots, concepts, and worldbuilding.

Not to say that men cant write good characters or women can't make intriguing settings, since a good writer will usually have a handle on all of these things, but those aspects are what I noticed that their strengths and weaknesses usually gravitate around because women are more focused on "people" and men are more focused on "things."

>>22506272
Men are pretty much better at everything, the only things in which women are better than men can be explained because of lack of interests, rather than an actual accomplishment by women.

>>22506361
Women have by far the most intense orgasms in all regards, female pleasure is the peak of human sexual pleasure. At least in a heterosexual context.

>>22506304
This. If only something can be done to change that.

>>22506464
Damn guess I’m fucked

>>22506295
cope
post 10 masterworks written by women

>>22506366
lol funny bc just above this someone said men r more sentimental. incels can apparently not bring up one coherent pattern of reasoning

>>22506552
no. no you guys cannot and it’s almost hilarious trying to read a female figure from a man who clearly has very little experience. actually there isn’t much of a difference due to experience, men just can’t write women, period.

>>22506272
I opened a woman book in rehab and the setting was a woman in an office confronting a guy about his supposition that she's a shut because she was on a dating app, this was me flipping to a random part and reading two sentences. Life is too convenient for them most of the time for them to have tomadapt their views to pondering any circumstance objectively. Their interests are usually always general to their feminine condition, that being gratification, comfort, and superficiality, there is no demand of them to drive themselves into the unknown or experience any masculine archetypes, women are fags

>>22506272
>live life on easy mode
>be unable to relate to the human condition
Women truly do live in their own little world.

>>22506272
Why are men better than women at pretty much everything?

>>22506341
I honestly wouldn't mind women being overhyped if they at least had and raised kids, which is literally the single biological function that's the fountainhead of their value. In countries like South Korea, what good are the women? What's the societal benefit of letting them have such disproportionate economic and social influence?

The ironic end result of feminism will be the death of feminist thinking as the more independent ones get shredded out of the gene pool. Because at least when women had no choice, they could independently have ideas and push back to an extent, yet still have children and pass on those traits. In the future it'll just be highly educated mormon tier housewives for the upper class and dysgenic fat welfare queens with pitpulls and feral children for the lower.

>>22506361
Only if you're circumcised

>>22506272
Men have the ability to be more objective than women. Not perfectly but near perfect. They can write stories about a guy who went on a trip because it's fun. Women have to have a story relate to them. This is also why most book reviews talking about relatability are written by women.

>>22506366
I agree with your sentiment. How would you respond to the criticism of men's writing by women, which may go: "Our writing is grounded in the realities of everyday life. You men, all you do is seek escapism in your fantasies and epics and never come back to Earth to face things that actually matter"?

>>22506512
>I've never heard of a man convulsing and blacking out from orgasm.

That's just because most men don't do anal orgasms

>>22506439
lolno, that's a tranny (I see the resemblance however)

>>22506389
Kill yourself tranny. YWNBAW.

>>22506295
>Not really better, just different. Men will write male books, women will write female books
Okay then, why are male books better than female books.

>>22506366
>>22506367
Are women are responsible for the increase in meta-humor?

>>22506313
>removing women's rights and putting them all back in the kitchen because that's their natural role.
Best idea in this whole thread

>>22506295
Point made. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant.

Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant.

Redundant.

>>22506272
women think overly in terms of sex and material gain

>>22506431
Nah, men are driven to work and that is past obtaining a mate. It's about survival, the only way humans can survive is men working to make the world work around us livable.

>>22506585
Yeah but women didn't found society, and in any given conceivable scenario, men would be the ones who founded it. The reality here is what made them the ones who founded society is also what makes them better writers, and guess what, it isn't in their muscles it's in their skull.

>>22506272
Women can only write about relationships not ideas or concepts.

>>22506295
>Men and women are not the same, so why should be held to the same standards, or be expected to act the same, or to do the same thing, or like the books?
because in the democratic society/culture we have to pretend they are

men are better writers than women overall, but most great writers and artists in general tend to be very woman brained. very feminine, sedentary, meek, weak losers who sit around all day and write and observe and what not and had the privilege to do so. sorta like how women were never allowed to do anything ever so they just wrote stuff.

it's why i don't understand the hate towards rich kids, plants, trust fund kids, etc. because most great art has been historically made by the wealthy.

>>22507857
>The midwit's intellectual

imagine a female black philosopher

>>22507912
t. dumbass

>>22507922
but muh reparations