/lit/ - Literature

ignoring women is not misogyny.

>>2936188
>trying to normalise misogyny

Get back to your underground feminist lair, hambeast. Go on, be gone.

>>2936190
I read only male authored works.

What you going to do about it?

>>2936179
I'd like to have a discussion about male authors portraying female chars, but you framed it in such a way that I know it will fail utterly, so I won't.

the name you're searching for is henry james.

Thomas Pynchon comes to mind.

>implying 'god bless america' isn't a poor man's 'american psycho'.

>>2936192
1. I'm not feminist I'm just not misogynist and like to read well written female characters rather than two dimensional ones.

2. I'm not even a woman.


Now, if someone has something intelligent to add to this thread, feel free.

>>2936210
Bret Easton Ellis is a poor man's [insert good author here].

Virginia Woolf

>>2936207
eh, pynchon could be accused of having the women usually play second fiddle. i agree with all above who find the framing of this question non-conducive to discussion. so, anybody know any great living or dead male authors who are both not spiteful toward women and who are also seriously interested in women's place in society in a non-condescending way? thomas hardy comes to mind.

>>2936213
I actually agree. He is rather overrated. But he is pretty unapologetically misogynist so he's a good example.

You'd think there would be some misanthropic authors out there that aren't misogynist.

>hurr all women suck
>but not all men and some are great individuals

>this is what misogynists actually believe

>>2936220
I was mainly thinking of V. which I interpreted as being 'feminist,' but I suppose you're right not that I think about it—nearly all of the central characters are male and I think it was mostly focused on male romantic unfulfillment. I dunno, it's been a while.

The Crying of Lot 49 has a female protagonist who is, well, a person, I guess. I'm pretty sure you could reverse her sex (and maybe that of a couple other characters if you wanted to keep the romantic history heterosexual) and I don't think it would change much.

>>2936179
>I'm talking about both obvious spite towards women

Are you seriously trying to say that the vast majority of published authors are harbouring some kind of 'spite' towards women in general? Congratulations, that is the most ridiculous thing I have read on 4chan today.

Is there a tin foil hat equivalent for feminists?

>>2936233
>this is what misogynists actually believe

>>2936225
i find that most misogynists i encounter believe that there are indeed women who are great individuals -- smart, accomplished, heroic, whatever. it's just hard to deny. but the women that they know personally and expect to encounter are mostly bitches or are inferior in some way.

>>2936233
>hat
>symbol of patriarchy
so misogynis'

>>2936210
seriously though fuck that shitty ass movie, i don't care if the meta-meaning was that the serial killers became the annoying pubes they sought to eradicate in the first place; that episode of black mirror did it better anyway and with 100% less twee-soedgy-ellenpagewannabe-bullshit

>>2936221
he said there has never been a tv show of cinema-level cultural value.

>saging this thread
confirmed for misogynist neckbeard fatty

>misogynist

>implying i'm a human

>>2936234
i definitely think oedipa maas's gender is important to the novel and is treated fairly and seriously, so i suppose that's actually a good example though obviously pynchon is no henry james when it comes to women.

>>2936245

>implying i'm a truman

>>2936247
You're probably right. I read it like four years ago anyway.

So yeah, Henry James and Virginia Woolf.

I wonder if it's harder for a male writer to earn respect if he writes about women than if he writes about men. Female authors are often blamed of their work not being universal enough if it's about women's life and female specific issues while male authors can get away writing nothing but ennui for their entire career.

I'm currently rewriting all of western literature so that it isn't misogynist

What do you guys think:

Anger be now your song, immortal one,
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)
Akhilleus’ anger, doomed and ruinous,
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)
that caused the Akhaians loss on bitter loss
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)
and crowded brave souls into the undergloom,
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)
leaving so many dead men — carrion
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)
for dogs and birds; and the will of Zeus was done.
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)
Begin it when the two men first contending
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)
broke with one another
(Women are great Women are great Women are great)

A better question is are there any great dead or living authors of either sex that write characters that are individuals and not men or women?

>>2936254
>>2936219
>Virginia Woolf
>great dead or living male authors
>male authors
>male

>>2936237
Yes, and if pressed on the subject they will invariably pretend that it's simple coincidence that they can't talk about women without shit talking.

>>2936262
A lot of people subconsciously think of men as human while women as some sort of inferior subhuman opposite.

>>2936264
>2012
>believes in individuals

You fucking misogynists are all the same. I'm getting all hot and flustered over here with all the rampant misogyny, I don't think I can can keep contained any longer. Oh, God. Here it comes. Now look what you misogynists have done... uhh.... uhh.... aaggghh.. RAAAPEE CULTURREE

>>2936263
hilarious. have you considered a career as a stand up comedian?

>>2936273
>2013
>still dehumanizing yourself in the name of science (a religion)

>>2936271
Get in the lifeboat you subhuman piece of shit!!!

>>2936267
>implying that reasonable criticism must leave room for satisfactory representation

>>2936277

>men invented it

>>2936268
Are you generalizing that all men who dislike women on average are guilty of generalizing

>>2936277
>he thinks chivalry isn't misogyny
>in the year of our lord 2012

>>2936282
>Women benefit while men drown
>Women are still the victims

Nabokov springs to mind, also Fitzgerald -though most of his women, despite the whole "liberated flapper" label- don't seem all that liberated in retrospect. There are some cases of alpha women/beta men in his short stories I can think of though, "Head and Shoulders" and "The Jellybean" most notably.

>>2936254
>>2936247
>>2936204

Yeah, but have you ever read The Bostonians? He just writes off the suffrage movement as some silly women's hobby. He was able to inhabit the mind of women quite well for the purposes of writing, but that doesn't mean he held them all that much in regard.

>>2936275
to answer the original question seriously, i think henry james is the only anglophone writer who takes individual subjectivity seriously, but part of taking it seriously is recognizing the pervasive determination of subjectivity by one's sense that they belong to a gender category.

>>2936288
What if one is so individual they are inhuman and so inhuman they are alien?

>>2936282
>he thinks characterizing different gender roles as "misogyny" is appropriate even when men are clearly the ones being disadvantaged and ruthlessly used/discarded/abused
>he doesn't see how casting women as eternal victims and men as the "doers" is what causes skewed gender roles to begin with

learn2Other

There were 1,097 Canadians killed at their place of work in 2005 according to a recent study by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards. When we take a look at who these people are, the gender trend is clear; the average rate of workplace deaths in Canada in 2005 was 30 times higher for men than women. In other words, 97 per cent of the people killed on the job were men. In actual numbers, of the 1097 reported workplace deaths in 2005, 1069 were male workers while the remaining 28 were female workers. The study also reports, the rate of workplace death is rising for men and falling for women.

>>2936285
>infantilizing women, thinking of them as in constant need of protection by men
>somehow men are not on the top of the resulting hierarchy
>fetishizing a particularly extreme example of this ideology and generalizing it at the expense of most of history

Elmore Leonard springs to mind, but /lit/ will inevitably dismiss him as a "genre" writer.

>>2936277
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-30/chivalry-on-sinking-ships-only-a-myth-researchers-find.html

"Women and children first” was never the social norm on sinking ships, nor was the self- sacrificing captain who gives the order before going down with his vessel, a study of maritime disasters shows.

Crew members had the highest survival rates in shipwrecks, followed by captains and male passengers, according to the report today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research found that women’s survival rate on 16 maritime disasters from 1852 to 2011 was half that of men’s, and children had the worst chance of getting off the boat alive. "

But nice try.

>>2936292
lol

>>2936286
yes, although i think the question of misogyny in the bostonians is more complicated than that. it's a novel that has continually disappointed critics for treating ideological conflict as displaced personal conflict. it's just as true for basil as it is for olive.

i think that portrait of a lady, in the cage, the ambassadors, the wings of the dove, and the golden bowl all contain fantastically interesting and sensitive representations of women.

>>2936292
>capitalism dehumanizes people and often kills them for the benefit of a small group of people
>blames women
lrn2marx

>>2936292
oh god a MRA is here

>>2936297
>willfully misinterpreting

for shame

>Men in general have better survival prospects, unless they engage in self-sacrificing, helping behavior, the authors said. The exception is the sinking of the RMS Titanic, in which the survival rate of women and children was three times higher than men’s. In that instance, the captain ordered a women-and- children-first evacuation, and officers reportedly shot men who disobeyed, according to the study.

>>2936295
really? leonard's treatment of women is interesting and provocative and not exactly nasty (or at least no nastier than leonard is toward men and black people), but in what i've read of him i've always groaned a bit at how plainly his women dissolve into tropes. i'm thinking particularly of the woman lawyer from city primeval here.

>>2936294
>infantilizing women, thinking of them as in constant need of protection by men
No, you're the one infantilizing them. You're claiming that an explicit example of female privilege is still oppression, because the privileged people in question were women. If we were talking about white people being lot off of a sinking ship while leaving the minorities to drown, would you still throw them a pity party and claim that they were the real victims?

Please. Like you claim, women aren't flowers who will fall apart at the slightest instance of not being the victim who needs protection in all situations.

>>2936292
I can't think of any decent feminist who seriously thinks that patriarchy means everything is great for all men. Any serious analysis of patriarchy will show that the pressures on men socially and materially are very bad.

As far as legislation/wages/taxes go: I also don't think it's a serious possibility that these problems will be solved within the current political order. But you can continue to mask your obvious hatred of women through "masculism" or whatever.

guys, ignore the mra. when have you ever seen anything interesting happen as a result of engaging with one?

>>2936311
>No "decent" feminist would say a thing that is wrong. "Real" feminists are always right and forthcoming.

Oh. Handy.

>You hate women and your arguments are just a mask for it.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

>But what matter, said Charmides, from whom I heard this? No matter at all, I replied; for the point is not who said the words, but whether they are true or not.

Can we get back to the topic and list some male authors who have done good job with writing women? MRA already have a board and it's called /pol/...

Anyway, one author who I think writes pretty great women is actually Stephen King. He doesn't romanticize them or fetishize their fear/pain (common in horror writers). Of course King isn't considered "great author".

>>2936313
good point, this, tbqh

>>2936310
>willfully misinterpreting
continue to act as if I'm not talking about patterns of behavior in general and not your basically irrelevant example.
>Like you claim, women aren't flowers who will fall apart at the slightest instance of not being the victim who needs protection in all situations.
lol. projecting so hard here.

I don't have a penis or a vagina.
Just a "hole".

what does that make me?

>>2936316
>No "decent" feminist would say a thing that is wrong. "Real" feminists are always right and forthcoming.
This is tautologically true. A person who is correct in their beliefs does not say things that are incorrect.

Thanks for restating my point succinctly.

What's with all the whinging about MRAs? Calling out female privilege is not something exclusive to MRAs, you know.

okay, let's get back to business. so far the nominees are

>>2936299
james

>>2936307
leonard

>>2936317
king

slim pickings, that.

>>2936319
a man in a position of authority chose to impose order through violence and shoot people who were trying to save themselves so he could enact a plan that would save the women and children on his ship, rather than the men.

if you don't think it speaks to a general trend of seeing women as fragile victims who need saving, and men as morally culpable individuals who can handle themselves and whose deaths are thus tolerable if tragic, we disagree, and that's fine.

>>2936327
don't validate people who instinctively berate viewpoints outside the status quo. you'll only make them worse.

>>2936324
>>2936324
A street.

>>2936330
Philip Pullman. But yeah not great ofc.

You know being biased towards males is misogyny, too, right?

>>2936331
>don't validate people who instinctively berate viewpoints outside the status quo. you'll only make them worse.
MRAs are far further from the status-quo than feminsts. I mean, Jesus Christ, being a feminists is a valid academic career and they have their own degree (women's studies), how much more status-quo can you get?

>>2936336
That's generally referred to as "misandry."

>>2936336
No, Misandry is the hatred of men.

and Misanthropy is a healthy equal hatred of everybody.

feminism, lol

>>2936331
>if you don't think it speaks to a general trend of seeing women as fragile victims who need saving, and men as morally culpable individuals who can handle themselves and whose deaths are thus tolerable if tragic, we disagree, and that's fine.
You're terrible at reading.
I've already said all that was the case.
Treating women like children who need men to protect them is misogyny down pat.
You're a fucking idiot tbh.

>>2936346
And all the words start with 'miss'. Female privilege right there.

wow, this thread went from borderline interesting to irreparably stupid really fast.

>Are there any great dead or living male authors that aren't misogynist?

Not that I can think of that I have read. All men have some misogyny (they are entitled to it) and if a writer does not draw on the whole of his experience when writing it is unlikely and probably impossible that he could produce great work.

Shakespeare wrote convincing varied women characters and I'd guess he had a good streak of misogyny in him.

>>2936340
that's what i'm saying, sorry if i was unclear. masculism is a really marginal viewpoint, so it's easy to shit on, and it's politically correct to shit on it. shitting on things that have no chance of fighting back, and whose reasoned arguments you can brush aside by saying "HAHA! NOT MANY PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU!" is pleasurable.

never respond to someone who handwaves away an opinion the basis of its unpopularity, because even if you can win out over their flippancy, they're just gonna get bored and leave. they don't want an argument, they want to shit on an easy target.

>>2936348
calling it misogyny is "misogyny" because it deprives them of self-determination in the same essential way

>>2936355
yeah but masculism is also real fucking dumb

also this thread is total balls. everybody stop posting in it. juts stfu and get back to chugging dick.

>>2936355
>calling it misogyny is "misogyny" because it deprives them of self-determination in the same essential way
What?

men -> human males
Men -> humanity (both males and females)

do i have it right?

>>2936359
1.5/10, made me reply

hypothesis: the so-called men's rights movement is second-wave feminism as farce.

>>2936354
>All men have some misogyny
No they don't.
>thinking of human males as representatives of humanity
>implying the majority of humanity isn't bad

>they are entitled to it
wat

>>2936353

Haha.

So much dick jelly.

>>2936353

>Yet some Swedish women apparently think that the image of the Nordic country as a feminist's paradise is just a veneer hiding deep-seated misogyny. Their evidence? Men slouching and taking up more than one seat on buses, trains, and subways.

>To counter this "normalized expression of power" (that’s what they call slouching), a group of firebrand feminists have set up a blog called "Macho i Kollektivtrafiken" ("Macho in Public Transport"), encouraging readers to send in sneaky snaps of men in relaxed poses. The aim is to spread awareness of a "symbolic and active recreation not just of power, but of a stereotypical form of masculinity."

>>2936374
HURR HURR GUYS FANNY ARTICLE

>men's humour

>>2936375
Actually I mean
>men's "humour"

>>2936360
>yeah but masculism is also real fucking dumb
We live a culture of perpetual female victimhood, and much of this is tolerated and even encouraged by feminists. I'm not certain what "masculism" is and I'm not sure I subscribe to it, but I simply believe that society really, really needs to get off the bent that discrimination against men is irrelevant because of "male privilege" and the "patriarchy", that male circumcision in first world countries is acceptable because female circumcision in third world countries is worse, and that women in general need to be a protected class of society and that their concerns are always more important.

>>2936354
I agree that all men are less or more misogynist and can't really help it. I disagree that they are entitled to that but I'm happy misogynist at least occasionally just admit what it is that they think.

>>2936355
The belief that men are superior than women and women are actually the villains who are oppressing men is as old as humanity itself. There is absolutely nothing subversive about MRA. They are fighting to stop progress and even take steps back.

MRAs have done nothing to help men. Where are the shelters they've build? There aren't any. Why don't they fight for the rights of minority men who have it the worst? They don't even seem to care about anyone who isn't white. Why don't they help gay teen boys who are in serious risk when coming out of the closet? Because homosexuality goes against their world view.

MRA are extremely conservative in every way.

>>2936375

it's not meant to be humor; the website they're talking about is real...

>this is what (some) feminists actually believe

>>2936379
woob woob woob woob woob

i'm doctor zoidberg

>>2936380
>The belief that men are superior than women and women are actually the villains who are oppressing men is as old as humanity itself. There is absolutely nothing subversive about MRA. They are fighting to stop progress and even take steps back.
What does wanting to end discrimination against men have to do with claiming women are "villains"?

>>2936366

>No they don't

That is my experience and judgement.

>thinking of human males as representatives of humanity

I don't follow your point here.

>implying the majority of humanity isn't bad

Not bad, but a mix of bad and good. Name a perfect human being.

>they are entitled to it

Yes. It is impossible to not conceive of an other group in terms of that group at times. And "Woman" has lot of particular flaws for which contempt, if not hatred, is a rational and decent response. Women are entitled to some misandry too. The problem is people who get trapped in their perspective and see the same thing wherever they look. To talk about men regarding this issue - that'd be MRA misogynists who can't see anything decent in women and liberal bigot "allies" who deny their own negativity toward women.

>>2936384
Niggers raped my parents to death, so I'm fighting the power!

SMASH the patriarchy!

>>2936380
>I agree that all men are less or more misogynist and can't really help it

are you a hard determinist or something?

>>2936358
victim complexes undermine self-determination. you can't legislate men into respecting you, and you shouldn't, because everyone should be free to think and say what they want. the use of the term misogyny, and the fact that patriarchy is a scapegoat for female failures, are signs of a victim complex. you don't get more women into STEM majors by saying "fuck, men prevented us from raising the % of STEM majors who are female this year! again!" that is counterproductive, because it creates a boogeyman which is responsible for all your problems, rather than just.. you know, getting angry and becoming STEM majors.

when you look at men doing what they think is noble and literally dying to preserve your life, and you see "fucking assholes oppressing us by seeing us as pampered princesses and victims," something has gone wrong. you're just demonizing your chosen boogeyman. what you should be seeing, and demonizing, is the *process* that created the situation, while respecting the essential humanity and compassion of the misguided people involved.

>>2936380
>The belief that men are superior than women and women are actually the villains who are oppressing men is as old as humanity itself.
so is the practice of butchering all the men and enslaving all the women. or men being consigned to hard, usually fatal labour slavery, while women are given menial jobs and even allowed relative freedom. so is the practice of men being absolutely required to fight for their communities to have a right to citizenship, and dying to the last to protect the women in the citadel.

shit sucks. that's the conclusion. you are mistaking your annoyance at men thinking they're better than women because they're burly hunters for tangible physical oppression, which is mixed and goes both ways.

>>2936389
like 90% of MRA seem to argue that feminism is a conspiracy to get more power for women by oppressing men, that prejudice against men is the result of feminism and other efforts by women, that everything they want to change or roll back was the result of things that were mostly done by women. all of those things cast women as the villains of the story.

>>2936387
>That is my experience and judgement.
Great, that means it is bullshit.

>who deny their own negativity toward women.
>speak for yourself you fucking faggot

>Name a perfect human being.
>Me

>>2936380

>I disagree that they are entitled to that

Hey! I couldn't live without it. Are you going to deny me my right to life?

>>2936179
Misogyny is only amateur tier
I dislike every equal misanthropy here
People equally shitty that's what I say mere
just hoping it'll be better next year

But it won't be so don't speak ideology here
shit will get worse before it will better in here
be a solipsist and lock yourself in sphere
but engaging is the only policy here

>>2936396

>who deny their own negativity toward women.
>speak for yourself you fucking faggot

. . .

>Name a perfect human being.
>Me

Oh you're in denial. How surprising.

>>2936404
>>who deny their own negativity toward women.
What gave you the right to speak on behalf of around 3 billion male human beings?

>>2936395
>like 90% of MRA seem to argue that feminism is a conspiracy to get more power for women by oppressing men, that prejudice against men is the result of feminism and other efforts by women, that everything they want to change or roll back was the result of things that were mostly done by women. all of those things cast women as the villains of the story.
Except not a single poster in this thread has even self-identified as an MRA, people have just claimed they were because they pointed out discrimination against men, then because they share beliefs with MRAs (who you claim just hate feminism and have nothing else to offer), they must similarly hate feminism. Nevermind that whenever anyone criticizes feminism you'd probably be the first guy who'd pop up and claim that "feminism isn't a monolith".

>>2936380
>MRAs have done nothing to help men.
if the information is correct, it deserves to be shared, and they hurt no one by doing so. they aren't beholden to open charities. you don't prove or disprove the correctness of an ideal through philanthropy. ideals stand on their own. you should really do some research into the hilarious pitfalls and tribulations of the abolitionist movement, which was heavily supported its by being trendy among the upper classes, and which fell on extremely hard times when freedom actually resulted in horrible economic conditions for most freed slaves, and most of its support tapered off as its "moral victory" had been had. it was no longer exciting. still doesn't make the ideal bad, even if thousands starved and went homeless.

>They don't even seem to care about anyone who isn't white.
just to pick one example among your questions, this was a major problem of second wave feminism, that it was rooted or concerned with one class. it's a good example of how the execution of an ideal is rarely perfect.

>Because homosexuality goes against their world view.
see earlier in the thread where "real feminists" are the ones who don't hold incorrect or morally abhorrent views.. "oh, that's just the bad ones! ignore those!"

but really, the point is that if you agreed with some of what they're saying (men are oppressed/disadvantaged in some way) but not the rest (fuck them faggots yo), there's nothing stopping you from supporting the former but not supporting the latter. once again you're reacting to the *people* and not the ideal, which stands (or falls) on its own.

estrogen is the worst kind of hormone

>>2936393
> you can't legislate men into respecting you, and you shouldn't, because everyone should be free to think and say what they want.

sure. but men should respect women and vice versa. to have the right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.

> the use of the term misogyny, and the fact that patriarchy is a scapegoat for female failures, are signs of a victim complex.

your argument seems to be that attempting to understand the causes of a problem is counterproductive, and that instead we should just try to solve the problem. i would argue that understanding the cause of a problem is almost never counterproductive. and in fact may make it easier to solve the root problem instead of just addressing statistics.

the other part of your argument seems to be that patriarchy just isn't the explanation here. you've concluded, in advance, that it's not true, and therefore looking to it as a possible mechanic for why shit happens is misguided / part of a victim complex. but that only really holds true if you have decided in advance that patriarchy isn't the explanation and that feminists are wrong. in other words, what you're saying is that "[assuming feminists are wrong] feminists are wrong."

>you're just demonizing your chosen boogeyman. what you should be seeing, and demonizing, is the *process* that created the situation, while respecting the essential humanity and compassion of the misguided people involved.

that is, i think, what feminism does for the most part. and the PROCESS that created the situation is in fact patriarchy. patriarchy is systemic, not entirely the result of individual vice or failing.

>>2936286
Except Fitzgerald didn't write those characters they were written by Zelda Fitzgerald.

>>2936405

Newton's third law of motion?

Majority of men AND women must see women as inferior. Otherwise it wouldn't really be possible that all cultures at all times have seen this as undeniable fact - in religion, in philosophy, in law, in science. If majority stands against something then it can't become a cultural norm.

It's actually funny how many men a scared of some feminist conspiracy. I actually think it's far more common for women to dislike feminism. Who even identifies as feminist nowadays? It's become a dirty word, an insult. Women getting more equal was not really a result of feminism, feminism just helped the inevitable results of capitalism. Capitalism putting women to work is what started it all and what still drives the progress. Once they are employed, you have to start giving them money, economical power leads to political power so you must let them vote...

>>2936179

Gustave Flaubert and Henrik Insen maybe.

>>2936418
Ah, snark. The old standby of the /lit/ user who wants to pretend they're too cool for actual discussion.

>>2936408
look at >>2936379
>we live in a culture of victimhood and a culture that does all these bad things as a result of feminism

look at >>2936292

people are saying these kinds of things that MRA say. they're making the same class of arguments that lead to the same point: feminism is oppressing men.

also i don't want to be bothered to read this thread any more because its freal fucking bad

>>2936425

That wasn't snark. That was a serious point. I didn't elaborate because so far you haven't shown that you're the sort of person worth elaborating things to.

That'sf you're the guy whose been replying to my posts previously. If you are take a read back through and check your manners.

>>2936416
>men should..

i think people should do whatever they want. society should have no "shoulds", so far as people's behaviour doesn't directly harm others (i'm not a libertarian i swear). laissez faire freedom of speech and thought is too important to melt it down and turn it into an anti-hate-speech-butthurt cream. i should be free to say to the recently freed blacks that they are filthy niggers, their race was created and bred for slavery, and they will never amount to anything.. and they should be free to prove me wrong and tell me to fuck myself, in whatever order they please.

women have legal freedom and opportunity, and that's what counts. i think you hurt them more in the long run by coddling them and giving them Women's Studies wankfests than you do by exposing them to harsh reality, ie. the responsibilities and trials that come with opportunity. i think you create a stronger zeitgeist (or whatever) in the long run by disdaining them than by inculcating White/Patriarchal Guilt, because it spurs them to define themselves on their own, rather than in relation to you and your oppression.

>the other part of your argument seems to be that patriarchy just isn't the explanation here. you've concluded, in advance, that it's not true

it's more that i've concluded it's irrelevant. there is no legal barrier to women entering STEM majors. i am not beholden to do shit. no quota systems. no equity seminars. they can make their own path, or not.

a perfectly level playing field is impossible, but the will to overcome all potholes and speedbumps is the ultimate leveling factor. and nothing kills that will more quickly than telling people to sit on the sidelines and wait for you to figure out how to perfectly level the field for them.

>>2936421
>Majority of men AND women must see women as inferior
why would they do that?

What about Anna Karenina?

>>2936416
also

>that is, i think, what feminism does for the most part.

i agree 100%, and i consider myself a hardcore supporter of feminism, as beauvoir, wollstonecraft, and even paglia see it. but i think its practical application has been really misguided and people have missed the finer points. nothing bothers me more than the idea of half the human race being second class citizens, it's just that i see their current coddled (imho) state as spiritually equivalent to their pre-suffrage domestic status.

>>2936428
>feminism is oppressing men

i would say that many of "the people calling themselves feminists" are oppressing men, in the form of stupid legislation and overlooking major problems facing men in favour of minor/nonexistent ones facing women.

>>2936428
Actually, what I said was:
>We live a culture of perpetual female victimhood, and much of this is tolerated and even encouraged by feminists.
And I stand by it too. That's not to say that all instances of gender disparity that harms men are the result of feminism, or that feminism hasn't done plenty of valuable things, or that I have a problem with women having their own advocacy movement, simply that feminists perpetuate narratives of female victimhood to justify discrimination against men.

>Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish

>But sexual assault is also used to put "undesireables" in their place. Misogyny plays into that, too. The language of prison rape reflects rape-related misogyny, from jokes about the rapist making the less powerful prisoner his "bitch" to our limited understanding of prison sexual assault as necessarily entailing penetration with a penis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women

I just provided two mainstream media examples of feminists turning instances of male suffering into "What about teh womenz?" Keep bleating about how it must never happen because an MRA said it once if that makes you happy, I guess.

>>2936440
because the majority of people are filthy animals that deserve to be enslaved by the non-filthy animal people.

>>2936436
> i should be free to say to the recently freed blacks that they are filthy niggers, their race was created and bred for slavery, and they will never amount to anything.. and they should be free to prove me wrong and tell me to fuck myself, in whatever order they please.

The problem with this is that as a non-"nigger" you have far more chances to have your opinions heard than a "nigger" will. So the freedom of speech is not equal because opportunities to get your opinions out to the public are not the same for everyone. A white man will always be listened more than a black woman because most people assume, based on stereotypes, that he has more important things to say. Read about how non-white authors struggle to get their books published, hoe they are told to hide their race, not talk about it in their books, make their protagonists white.

You seem to believe that systemic oppression does not exist and white men are at the top because everyone else just got too lazy to try. This is incredibly naive and privileged world view that goes about everything we know about history and sociology.

Besides Harry Potter I have never read a book written by a women.

>>2936436
>i think people should do whatever they want. society should have no "shoulds", so far as people's behaviour doesn't directly harm others (i'm not a libertarian i swear).. and they should be free to prove me wrong and tell me to fuck myself, in whatever order they please.

sure. you should be free to do all that. but you would be wrong to do any of that. seriously, this is not a complicated concept: although you have to the right to do or think or say whatever you want, there are still actions, thoughts, words that, though you have the right to say them, are not right to say. i defend your right to be a misogynist or a racist and say misogynist or racist things, but misogyny and racism are not right positions to take or right things to do.

>it's more that i've concluded it's irrelevant. there is no legal barrier to women entering STEM majors. i am not beholden to do shit. no quota systems. no equity seminars. they can make their own path, or not.

cool, we just gonna ignore all social or cultural factors and pretend that the only thing we need is legal equality.

certainly, any woman who is sufficiently determined and intelligent can become a STEM major. but if there are factors that are cultural and social that discourage them or prevent them or are obstacles that don't exist for men who want to be STEM majors, and I think there are, I don't see any reason not to do what we can to remove those factors insofar as we can. like, is there any reason for saying "we have full legal equality so FUCK IT, I don't give a shit about injustice, they can just fucking deal with it"

i don't see any reason t otake that stance

oi m8s wot u buggers all talkin bout down ere

>>2936190
Different anon here, I too think ignoring them doesn't constitute misogyny.

>>2936452

>Read about how non-white authors struggle to get their books published, hoe they are told to hide their race, not talk about it in their books, make their protagonists white.

That is the market unfortunately. The West is majority white. It'd be different in a Zimbabwean publishing house.

>>2936440
why do most people believe in some sort of god even though it goes against logic?

>>2936460

Refusing to engage is often a form of contempt.

>>2936452
>The problem with this is that as a non-"nigger" you have far more chances to have your opinions heard than a "nigger" will.
What country do you live in? Because it certainly isn't the United States.

>>2936465
your uneducated mind is showing

go back to reading your dawcunts

>>2936440

Males built our society and we ascribe value according to male criteria. Women are inferior judged in this way.

>>2936468

>dawcunts

could you be anymore sphincter-sorrowed?

>>2936452
>You seem to believe that systemic oppression does not exist and white men are at the top because everyone else just got too lazy to try. This is incredibly naive and privileged world view that goes about everything we know about history and sociology.
You seem to believe that because the people at the very top are white men that all white men are privileged. I'm not going to talk about race, but the majority of the prison and homeless populations are men. Holding up the 1% of men as some kind of evidence that those on the bottom are benefiting from some kind of invisible privilege is itself an argument born from privilege.

>>2936475
" intersectionality "

men at the bottom are disadvantaged because of race and class. that doesn't mean that gender advantages don't exist.

Your best bet is to focus on non-christian authors,
as the women-are-lesser-beeings mindset is very often tied to the misconception that god the allmighty is male
and thus men, due to beeing closer to god, are superior.

If you research a bit you'll learn that this idea comes from the hebrews dismissing the concept of the mother goddess making her an abomination and declaring god, or jehova, or jahwe as a male.

Yet there are no passages anywhere that actually say so and the title "lord" was added very late.
Even Jesus declares himself both male and female after his resurrection.

>inb4 but the musselmen hate women too
that's because they worship the same god

>>2936477
>men at the bottom are disadvantaged because of race and class. that doesn't mean that gender advantages don't exist.
Who said they don't exist? The point is that while men possess some, women do as well, or else it would follow that there would be more women at the bottom than men.

>>2936453
>Besides Harry Potter I have never read a book written by a women.

This.

Only Harry Potter, Pic related, and Hunger Games (flatmates lent me their copy and assured me it was the greatest book ever so I didn't see the harm in trying it).

Harry Potter and Enid Blyton are two of my greatest childhood memories.

>>2936452
>you have far more chances

NOT LEGALLY, which is the key component. it's all you can do. it's the least worst of two bad options. all the issues that you mention are indeed real issues, and i don't deny them at all, but it's in overcoming those issues that people gain their identity and will to survive in an unfair world. the alternative feels better in the short term, but in the long term it robs them of self-determination and dignity by turning them into a different form of dependent: instead of them being repressed and restrained pets, they're now spoiled brat children who never move out of the house.

>>2936483
lol

so what you're saying is that the best we can hope for is formal equality, that trying to make the world more justice is inherently hopeless, and that injustice actually benefits those it oppresses because it allows them to overcome?

lol fucking lol. shouldn't you then be arguing for the oppression of men in all things? since it would give you more opportunities to develop your will to power and "build character".

> the alternative feels better in the short term, but in the long term it robs them of self-determination and dignity by turning them into a different form of dependent: instead of them being repressed and restrained pets, they're now spoiled brat children who never move out of the house.

i really gotta stop posting in this fucking thread

>>2936477

No, but it does mean it isn't the pressing problem that feminists make it out to be. If some kind of measure of median disadvantage could be taken I'd hazard that women are more advantaged then men in the west at the moment. Young women certainly - they are better educated than men, earn more, are less likely to suffer various social ills etc etc.

Despite all the WOC and LBGT and other stuff in the egalitarian movement,m it still does mainly boil down (at least as far as public discourse goes) to upper middle class women complaining that a portion of upper middle class men are doing better than them. Class is much more of a determinant than gender for life chances but how many articles are their in the mainstream encouraging working class militancy etc?

>men invented pretty much everything
>b-but women are equal

>>2936454

>I don't give a shit about injustice, they can just fucking deal with it"

Why is it an 'injustice' for there to not be equal numbers? Have you never thought maybe less women than men want to be STEM majors? Less men than women become nurses, should we artificially correct this number too to solve the great 'injustice'?

It's such a typical liberal attitude. You're never happy until all the ratios are exactly 50/50, whether you forced them that way or not. There was one white guy in the 100m final at London 2012, and no asians. All the rest were black.

Should we artificially increase the number of other races until it's 1/3 1/3 1/3? Take out the worst black runners and put in the fastest whites and asians even though they were slower than the blacks we're taking out? Artificially boosting the numbers seems kind of stupid. As long as there are equal oppourtunities and no discrimination what's wrong?

>>2936491
Those are good points and I think we basically agree. But feminist complaints do have some validity and it's not necessarily wrong to think about them or work towards remedying them, although obviously we should also be doing a whole bunch of other shit that may in fact be more urgent.

>>2936454
>believing in empirically false horseshit like tabula rasa and denying biological differences between men and women
>2012

People actually do this?

>>2936454
you've accused me of denying the causes exist, but i have agreed they do. you've accused me of denying they are important to social change, but i have agreed they are. now you're outright saying there are universal standards of morality, which i can't agree to, and saying that the state's job is to mandate and legislate on the basis of conforming to these standards, to which i very very much disagree.

you're free to try to level the playing field all you want.. from a social level. the state exists to provide its citizenship (which should be universal and equal for legal residents) with the same standard of freedom and opportunity across the board, and protection where/when necessary. that's it. my utopia has no handicapper general, sorry. i agree reservation rats and niggers are disadvantaged but i don't agree it is morally contingent on me (one of the most leftist, activist, humanist, feminist faggots ever) to care or do anything about it, so long as i'm not actively depriving them of freedom.

>I don't give a shit about injustice, they can just fucking deal with it

i've written papers and done my best to convince submissive housefrau types to have more pride and see themselves as the equal of any dude, i've worked in soup kitchens and homeless shelters and tutored poor niggers from shitty areas for free when i desperately needed money because it tore me up that i had a better opportunity for education than them. but i will never vote for a leader who wants to legislate that all people should feel or do as i do because it's "right."

>>2936490
>so what you're saying is that the best we can hope for is formal equality

i'm saying that's the state's concern. the rest is yours. or not.

>>2936479
so ... beeing a misogynist makes you a jew?

Why are egalitarians so fucking retarded? I swear it won't be long until smart people are forced to get brain chip implants to bring their intelligence in line with the retards, it's only fair.

>This shitty thread
>Again

>>2936509
>now you're outright saying there are universal standards of morality, which i can't agree to,

welp. i guess we're not going to come to any agreement then so fuckit

>and saying that the state's job is to mandate and legislate on the basis of conforming to these standards, to which i very very much disagree.

i have continuously said that it's not the state's job to do that. i have repeatedly made that point. i don't think it's the state's job to do that. i think that there are some things that you shouldn't say or do that the state should not outlaw. i mean, i've said this again and again and again, i really don't know where you've read from this that i think the state should outlaw speech.

>why are men such violent animals???

Being male nearly doubles the odds of being a victim of domestic violence as an adult but decreases the odds of perpetrating domestic violence. This finding, although contrary to public perception, is consistent with findings of national surveys in the United States and New Zealand 庸emales hit more often than males, but males do more damage when they hit. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin ・February 2002)

Approximately 13 percent of women and 21 percent of men report having survived severe physical domestic violence. (American Psychological Association, Inc., Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Gender Differences in Partner Violence in a Birth Cohort of 21-Year-Olds: Bridging the Gap between Clinical and Epidemiological Approaches ・1997, Vol. 65, No. 1, 68-78)

Conclusion is that female domestic violence victimization rates are no higher than male rates. (American Psychological Association, Inc., Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Gender Differences in Partner Violence in a Birth Cohort of 21-Year-Olds: Bridging the Gap between Clinical and Epidemiological Approaches ・997, Vol. 65, No. 1, 68-78 Violence ・July 2000)

>>2936472
>society
>a good thing
Looks like my own sex is the enemy.

>>2936526

>Females hit more often than males, but males do more damage when they hit

Women: more scummy and more incompetent than men.

>>2936529
>being a Rousseau cocksucker who believes in things like the "noble savage"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1BJmB0ZuXI

You people are aware that an author can write a protagonist with a personality that he himself doesn't agree with, right?

>>2936490
no, part of the paradox of toynbee's cultural thesis, or the will to power, or whatever, is that you have to acknowledge the debt we owe to hardship and suffering and badness, because they create greatness, but then no one really wishes for those things.

i don't think pressures should be created for individuals but i thank god life will continue to provide them on its own (overcoming the inherent weirdness of wishing for or willfully taking on suffering), and i think we shouldn't start selectively leveling life's hardships so that everyone has a perfectly fair starting point, which is impossible to begin with.

blacks didn't create jazz and find their place in the world because we said "oh jeez we're so sorry about the oppression, we'll forgive and understand all your wrongdoing because we engendered it, you move into the big house and we'll move into the slave shacks as penance". they did so because we told them to hit the fucking road and they'd never amount to shit. addressing legal discrimination was right, but addressing personal/social discrimination wasn't/isn't. hell, it still exists in most of its forms and they're a captive stereotyped culture at this point.

>>2936522
you keep writing "IT'S WRONG! IT'S WRONG! IT'S WRONG!" but the implicit meaning is "I THINK IT'S WRONG! I THINK IT'S WRONG! I THINK IT'S WRONG!" so when you keep doing it ad nauseum i can only think you're trying to say something else.

>>2936508

back to /sci/ you nihilist science lover scum

>>2936498
>implying it wasn't just a few supermen while the rest of the men slaved away and women got raped

>>2936532
>misunderstanding survival of the fittest
>go to that channel
>bunch of bullshit pseudo-science known as evo psych

and then i see this
>Multiculturalism as a weapon for World Government.

back to /pol/, /sci/, /b/, and /r9k/
take your low IQ with you

>>2936542
>no argument

Are egalitarians this dumb?

>>2936509
Surely a universal standard of morality exists there in itself as freedom? And upon this basis, the judgement of the state's function is simply to serve the definition: you take a very classical reproach, and with this, begs the question as to your understanding of how a society based on a supreme like for like freedom would work.

>>2936548
Might is right.

Give me your address so I can gut you like the little fish you are.

Come on, do it pussy, lets see how "fit" you really are.

>>2936555
>thinking survival of the "fittest" only involves physical strength

Are egalitarians this dumb?

>>2936555
>Give me your address so I can gut you like the little fish you are.
Why don't you give him yours instead? Either way, you'll end up fighting him, right?

>>2936559
>2012
>not an egalitarian
autist

To quote the gr8 Schophenhauer, Women are "an "undersized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short legged race ... they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius."

enjoy your delusional world view that tries to make unequal things equal no matter the cost

>>2936576
Fuck the world and fuck schophenhauer.

>gr8
also fuck you too

>>2936179

The level of metal introspection and inner suffering to become a truly great writer is usually something only a man can understand. Women have so many ways out and so many layers of emotional support available to them they never truly think deeply and try to understand their problems and shortcomings. I have never read anything written by a woman that reaches the same levels of understanding on matters of isolation from the world and loneliness needed to truly break down the world in ways a writer needs to be able to in order to be great.

Maybe one day I'll be proven wrong, but right now that's the world as I see it.

>>2936576
Why do misogynists push their misogyny so much, it does them no benefit. You're only diminishing your own achievements

>>2936581

>>2936589
Have you read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein?

>>2936589
Loneliness is a human condition, not male condition.

Roald Dahl.

>>2936613
In all likelihood, her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote it. After he tragically died, she famously told one of her suitors, "I married a Genius, I can only marry another." This by itself would not be reason enough to believe the argument, but she never wrote anything of value after his death. Coincidence? I think not.

u mad?

>>2936626
>>2936604
>u mad

>>2936626
In all likelyhood you're full of shit.

>>2936207

This.

>>2936626
Wow the evidence is overwhelming

>>2936626
>she never wrote anything of value after his death
except that she did
and she wrote frankenstein before she was married
get your facts straight

>>2936634
Then, Mary played the defenseless damsel in distress and wrote very touching letters to Lord Byron asking for money. Nothing I've said thus far is untrue; the letters exist and you can find them yourself if you use google, but you won't because you live in a fantasy world.

>>2936620

>>2936659
obese and ugly people have sex more than most because they have no standard. its with each other and its horribly disappointing because of their poor health but still.

>>2936659
I still wonder if you nerds actually believe this or are really that delusional.

go outside for once

OP here, sure am glad I started this thread. I got so many recommendations for male writers with good female characters and this thread didn't become an off topic troll fest at all!

>>2936653

In May 1816, Mary Godwin, Percy Shelley, and their son travelled to Geneva with Claire Clairmont. They planned to spend the summer with the poet Lord Byron, whose recent affair with Claire had left her pregnant.[48] The party arrived at Geneva on 14 May 1816, where Mary called herself "Mrs Shelley". Byron joined them on 25 May, with his young physician, John William Polidori,[49] and rented the Villa Diodati, close to Lake Geneva at the village of Cologny; Percy Shelley rented a smaller building called Maison Chapuis on the waterfront nearby.[50] They spent their time writing, boating on the lake, and talking late into the night.[51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley

You're fucking delusional if you think a woman of 20 with no real genius, and a penchant for miscarrying babies could produce Frankenstein. Anyone with any sort of knowledge of Percy's poetical works and of the couple themselves would agree that it's more than plausible that he wrote the novel. Trewlany, a close friend, also commented on this in his biography of Percy and Byron. She was a groupie.

>>2936687
unfortunately this is what happens if you mention women at all in any board on 4chan. the really obsessed men think about women so much that they relate everything wrong in the world with them in some way and react accordingly. you'll see people on boards bring up women for literally no reason at all sometimes. a sad, sad place

>>2936690
i wasn't sold on your argument at first but as soon as you mentioned her miscarriages yeah it's so obvious that she couldn't have written it

>>2936701
I like how they constantly destroy their own argument that feminism isn't necessary anymore by their own behavior. If that many young men hate women, you can bet equality hasn't been achieved.

>>2936717
yes, as much as i hate 97% of people who go around doing wailing about male oppression, it is better to have such an emphatic public reminder that there are a lot of men who hate and fear women than to have misogynists privately seething.

>>2936690
If you actually read the book you'd be aware that her miscarriages could've been a huge influence in writing the book, since acceptance of death and loss is one of the books themes.