/lit/ - Literature

>>3101923
Say that to my face fucker.

ITT: Misogynistic retards.

>>3101927
I am genuinely interested about the literary knowledge of E.L. James. I want to know if she's as utterly stupid as she appears, or if she has at least a perfunctory understanding of "actual" writers.

>>3101923
>Prove me wrong

I can't. You are clearly right.

>>3101939
>That moment when you realize she is actually brilliant and just wrote 50 Shades to get rich
>she goes on to write the first truly great novel of the century

Superiority coming through.

The greatest novelist, poet, play write, essayist, etc and etc, are all men. Is this a surprise?

No it is not.

Jane Austen flicks out a switchblade while the bronte sisters step out of an alley, Emily swinging abide chain.

>implying the author is still relevant

BUT DUDE WAHTA ABOUT HUNGAR GAMES AND HARRY POTTAR

>>3101949
I wish I could believe. That theory's sort of undone by the fact that it was a Twilight fanfiction first, since I doubt anyone truly brilliant would bother releasing the fruits of their get-rich-quick scheme as a fanfiction before releasing it properly.

>Implying Stephenie Meyer is a girl

The male dominance in literature is just another manifestation of the latent patriarchal structures in western society.

Can't we go back to the time where women stopped pretending to know shit?

>>3101991
2/10

1 for making me reply
1 for reminding me that people exist that actually beleive this shit

>male authors are superior
>prove this wrong

>>3102042
>there must be some woman whose work is of comparable stature

>>3101979
But that was a brilliant marketing strategy. Do you think she would be rolling in money if she hadn't managed to attach her BDSM porn to the Twilight brand?

>>3102046
>what about Jane Austen? the Brontes?

>>3102055
>a veritable drove, their volume of presence is staggering

>>3102065
>staggering

Men are more inclined to venture into serious intellectual and artistic areas out of an evolutionary advantage. Women are also often unable to pursue intellectual realms once they give birth and begin to undertake the necessary mother role. Testosterone also fuels a drive to do these things.

So is /lit/ basically just five people sucking each other cocks?

>>3102051
>implying the average reader is as spergy about books as you are, a thought that itself betrays greater sperg tendencies
men are clearly superior autists

>>3102042
>>3102046
>>3102055
>>3102065
>>3102070
pls leave /lit/ forever

>>3102096

>>3102093
>implying Zelda Sayre has any place in a conversation about great authors

and since no one has mentioned perhaps the greatest female author

>>3102108
>implying your bland Western canon authors do
bby the only taste u have is Harold Bloom's cock in ur mouth

>>3102134
>Harold Bloom
>Western canon
>implying my dissertation isn't entirely focused on Gogol and Dostoyevsky
>mfw

>jk rowling, el james and s meyer are bad authors
>they are the only women authors i know, and by extension, the only ones that exist
>therefore there aren't any good women authors

I agree. I'm trying to come up with a male or gender neutral penname so I can be taken more seriously in my literary endeavors.

>>3102196
Penis Vagina

flannery o'connor

They're better at poetry.

Emily Dickinson, Anne Carson, Sappho.

Also, Joyce is overrated.

>>3102196

thanks fucking stupid. this is the 21st fucking century. why are you trying to oppress yourself just because of some misogynistic fucks? is that your target audience? assholes who wouldn't take you seriously if they knew you're a woman? woman the fuck up and stop catering to sexist manchildren. good luck in your endeavors. :3

>>3102232

*that's. typo. it happens.

>>3102232
man the fuck up*

>>3102255

Sexist manchild.
Exhibit A.

>>3102231
>Joyce is overrated

How brave of you. What, pray tell, particular aspects of his prose do you find unworthy of praise ?

>>3102260
Enjoy keeping sexism alive by trying to change every non-neutral phrase or term.

>>3102232
>is that your target audience? assholes who wouldn't take you seriously if they knew you're a woman?

That target audience is 90% of straight men, faggots and bitches only read chicklit. If she wants anyone to read her shit, she needs a pen name.

>>3101931
You should be punched in the twat for offering that as a serious example, if that's what you're doing. She should be punched in the twat either way.*

*I hope she doesn't sue me for this statement.

>>3101991

I love you.

>>3102270

I'm not. Notice I didn't say "womyn" or anything stupid like that. I don't even use the phrase "woman up" or "man up" in general. I was just making a point. Telling girls to grow balls or man up in this society is just reinforcing the idea that in order for a girl to be worth anything, she needs to be a man. It's just upsetting to see other female authors thinking they need to mask their gender in order to be taken seriously. If you have an issue with that, I am sorry, but you are part of the problem.

>>3102271

Are you saying 90% of straight men in general? Because I don't think 90% of straight men read on a regular basis. You should be pulling that statistic from a more specific demographic, which would be [educated] men who read and seek out new literature regularly. And I think about 90% of them wouldn't care about someone's gender so long as their work was good.

>>3102291
>nd I think about 90% of them wouldn't care about someone's gender so long as their work was good

How do you explain threads like this happening at least daily then?

>>3102291
90% of people who take part in surveys and claim to be straight men.

Oh hey there.

It's time to accept the truth, ladies.

Daily reminder that egalitarianism is a mental disease.

>>3102298

Uh, because it's 4chan? 4chan is not the best representation of the majority. Don't get me wrong, I love coming here, but really. It's mindblowing to me how every board I frequent has their own version of why women suck. Women can't play video games, according to /v/. Women don't listen to music according to /mu/. And now women can't write. I'm not surprised or anything, and I still like coming here despite it being a pretty hostile environment a lot of the time. But seriously? It's funny you'd even ask that. I think I've met like two guys in real life who act like the the asses I talk to on 4chan (I'm not calling you an ass, just speaking generally), and one of them I actually met ON 4chan. (It was /r9k/ though. That place is something else.)

I'm not debating the "more productive" part, because that's obvious. There's plenty of reasons for it, which get brought up in these same threads that happen all the time.

Superior though, I don't know. There are many, many shit male authors, there are many, many shit female authors. If we only took the best of the best of each gender, I do think the talent involved starts to average out. There may not be perfect equivalents of whatever male author you like, but there's another talented female author out there to account for him.

/lit/ tends to hate contemporary literature, but I see it even more lately. There are just about as many female authors producing great works in world literature as there are males, though few people here notice any from either gender.

>>3102326
Nobody really cares about your inferior opinion, but thanks for sharing.

>>3102328

I think the reason people think men are more superior at things in general (art, music, literature, etc.) is because women haven't, until maybe the last 100 years, had the chance to thrive artistically the way men have.

It's like, guys think there are significantly less women authors compared to men because women are bad at writing, and not because for the longest time, it wasn't acceptable for women to write. How do people fail to realize this?

>>3102335
Jews have been oppressed since forever yet they have always been exceedingly brilliant.

>>3101939
I think of 50 shades of Grey as a moronic and watered-down version of Histoire d'O.

>>3102340
Not really. When they were heavily oppressed, the only really brilliant Jew to emerge was Spinoza. They didn't start producing geniuses until the 19th century, which is when your graph starts. Besides, they are God's chosen people.

hey /lit/, your patriarchy is showing

>>3102350
> They didn't start producing geniuses until the 19th century, which is when your graph starts.

Yes because they certainly weren't oppressed or victims of anti-semitism from 1800 onward.

There have been plenty of educated upper class women going back to pre-Roman times, with the opportunity to participate in literature, philosophy, and science, and indeed many have, but there has never been a female genius.

>>3102340
Same with the Irish

Women know that threads like this belong in /r9k/ whereas certain men appear to be having trouble with the concept.

>>3102355
Of course anti-semitism existed, but European Jews were much more free in the 19th century than before. That's also when brilliant female writers started emerging.

>>3102360
Define genius.

>>3102360
Participate and being considered isn't exactly the same.

>>3102355
I thought the whole 20th C antisemitism thing was because they were doing well?

>>3102372
>brilliant
>female writers

>>3102375
Their success was just an excuse for anti-semitism, not a cause.

>>3102381
>an excuse for
>not a cause
Hmmm...

>>3102010

Except that it's still completely true.

>>3102326
>Uh, because it's 4chan? 4chan is not the best representation of the majority.

4chan is a perfect representation of modern youth. Due to the anonymity we can say things here that we can't -or are afraid to- say in reality. People are a lot more open about what they like/dislike about social issues, and will reveal opinions they would usually keep to themselves. I know 4chan can seem extreme at times, but do you honesty think the pedo's, sexists, racists don't harbour and repress those opinions in real life? 4chan is just made up of average teenagers who aren't restricted by repercussion.

>>3102405

>4chan is just made up of average teenagers

The average teenager also has sex and a social life. 4chan isn't representative of the majority in any meaningful way. In fact it despises normality as a rule.

>>3102409
>The average teenager also has sex and a social life.

I think most of us here do have normal sex and social lives. There are far more lurkers here that ignore the 'tfw no qtgf' threads than there are people who post in them. I don't actually know anyone else who uses 4chan though, and would never reveal that I do, but I still think there are plenty of normal people here.

Oh, hey guys.

>>3102416

>lurkers

By that token I can say there are far more lurkers who ignore and don't participate in the extreme sexist, racist and pedo content.

>>3102409
>In fact it despises normality as a rule.
Yes, as normal teenagers tend to do.

Question here: If men and women were equal in all aspects, why did wound up in such a shitty situation in the first place?

>Do you guys like my cat?

>>3102438
N-No, shut up! Gender is a social construct!

science is sexist

>>3102440
hy-chain omptiq

>>3102434

A certain type of teenager sure. The kind of pariah/loner who 4chan provides a welcoming environment for. I'd say the majority of teens are very concerned with social standing and the acceptance of their peers however.

>>3102438
Male domination over women is natural, we haven't evolved significantly since our hunter-gatherer days. Only now because of advances in technology women have been artificially lifted up, since we can afford to give more rights to the weak.

>>3102438
>if poor people and rich people are so equal, why do people born into money do so much better?

>>3102445
can't into 4chan today

>>3102449
Except poor and rich are vastly more diverse than man and woman.

>>3102452
How?

>>3102449
Still doesn't answer his question though, stupid analogy by the way.

>>3102232
>women the fuck up
so do what she intended to do in the first place?

>>3102455
Are you people seriously still not getting the obvious problem:
>If men and women are so equal, except women haven't been equal because oppression, then why aren't men and women equal?

>>3102462
Did you even read his question? I know you women tend to get angered easily but please try to keep up with the discussion.

>>3102462
There's a reason most women were oppressed in virtually ever successful society, it's the natural state.

>>3102467
>There's a reason most women were oppressed in virtually ever successful society
It's western hegemony, with the metric for success being how much a country has become dominated by the west. Matriarchies still exist and have existed successfully all over the place.

>>3102462
His question is a right one. You answer is only valid if you're comparing men and women throughout history. He is assuming men and women were not equal to begin with, that's why women ended up 'oppressed'.
The thing is, men and women aren't equal at all. Both should accept that and respect each other for what they are. It's like saying a Japanese man and an Italian are equal. They aren't, but that's not good enough of an excuse to hate each other. Mind you, differences do not necessarily represent superiority/inferiority.

>>3102383
Yes, those are two different words. Good job.

>>3102431
I think that's a fair assessment, bell curve and everything.

>>3102405
>4chan is a perfect representation of modern youth

>>3102462
Natural male dominance refutes the widespread belief that men and women are equal in all aspects, one must ask oneself: Why should we share the power that is given to us by nature and what's in it for the male gender? The belief mentioned basically denotes the West as we know it today.

>>3102477
>Matriarchies still exist and have existed successfully all over the place.

[citation needed]

I'm defining success as contributed significantly to the progress of humanity. So far all societies that fit that criteria have been male dominated.

>>3102479
But why does oppression exist at all? Is an oppressor (such as someone born into money) actually inherently better than everyone they oppress, or is it that oppression can arise just as easily between peers of equal ability as between those of unequal?

>>3102467
>it's the natural state
Mostly cultural. And some would argue that it wasn't exactly oppression but "benevolent protection". Without, of course, taking too much offense to stoning adulteresses.

>>3102489
It's strikingly odd that every prominent culture that has even remotely contributed to the betterment of humanity has been male-dominated . What a coincidence.

>>3102438
You'd have to be pretty dumb to claim men and women are equal in all aspects. Men are, for instance, generally stronger than women. Your question has been considered by feminists, incidentally, but I'm not really familiar enough with it to give a satisfactory answer. I know Engels thought it was related to the domestication of animals and farming.

>>3102486
I'm not agreeing with him, so it's unnecessary for you to direct his sort of things at me. I only intended to say that you were not answering his question, and to be frank you still aren't.
These are very important questions I don't know the answer to, and I'm looking at this discussion trying to see how both of you would argue. If you know the answers to this then answer it please because it is very interesting - but it seems very unlikely that truly equal beings will ever experience oppression among each other.

>>3102485
>>3102494
>progress of humanity
>betterment of humanity
Measured on which scale? Capacity of oppression (unit: hitlers), capacity of destruction (unit: megadeaths) or environmental mayhem (unit: plastic bags)? Yes, I'm being flippant, but what exactly do you mean by "progress of humanity"?

>>3102499
We're already at the "w-well define progress!!!!" phase? I didn't expect you were this desperate. Whether you look at art, technology, or vast empires, etc all nations that have been successful at any meaningful endeavor have been male dominated. I'd like you to point of a major influential matriarchal society in history that you think disproves this assertion.

>>3102507
Meaningful in what? Seriously. Creating technology (and by extension, artistic mediums, vast empires, etc) ? Fine, of course I will agree with that, I'm not exactly denying everything I can to protect my fragile ego. Is that betterment of humanity, though? It would imply that we have a goal, or an objective scale or checklist to grade our "progress". Even non-affiliated theists would say that God didn't exactly give us such a tool.

>>3102509
>It would imply that we have a goal, or an objective scale or checklist to grade our "progress".

Seriously, you're just grasping at this point. No, I don't believe we have an objective goal. Use any meaningful criteria you want to judge the success of a society, and we'll compare these supposed "successful" matriarchal societies with male-dominated ones.

Come on now, I'm waiting.

>>3102485
>I'm defining success as contributed significantly to the progress of humanity.
That clears up nothing, and no doubt still boils down to how much like Western society a place is. Even by that metric, Cretan society was thought to be matriarchal way back when, which of course led to Greek culture and the west. The Celts had matriarchal elements to their culture too, and that was pan-European. There were matriarchal societies just as successful as any of the patriarchal societies all over the Americas, and there still exist heavily matriarchal societies in China, India and Africa today. In fact, prior to the industrial accident, Bhopal had a surprisingly matriarchal structure, and was considered developed enough to build a factory there (even if everything did go awry).

>>3102529
>Cretan society was thought to be matriarchal way back when

Somehow I doubt looking back they would even remotely be considered "matriarchal".

>Celts had matriarchal elements to their culture too

"Matriarchal elements" =/= matriarchy. Back to the drawing board.

>matriarchal societies
>China

Now you're just trolling. With the implementation of the one child policy, families desperately hope to have boys, to the extent the females are killed as infants.

>>3102499
It's widely known that the greatest measure of a society's success is the plastic megahitler

>>3102517
>Use any meaningful criteria you want to judge the success of a society
Happiness? Stability? Prevalence of psychological diseases? "Freedom"?

>>3102517
not deliberately slaughtering and enslaving foreign peoples for our own gain

that is my criteria

Ayn Rand, especially Atlas Shrugged.

>>3102536
Or "capacity of fucking up the environment enough so that it may entirely be possible that we brought our own extinction on ourselves (which is certainly an achievement)"?

>>3102498
>I only intended to say that you were not answering his question, and to be frank you still aren't
In fact, I am/have, but also had to point out that it's a dumb/flawed question.

>but it seems very unlikely that truly equal beings will ever experience oppression among each other.
>talking about the state of nature
>not having read any Hobbes
You need to go school yoself. On the Citizen and/or Leviathan.

>>3102536
So at this point I'm just going to assume that you cannot provide any examples of successful matriarchal societies, by any criteria. We're talking about intelligence, so we will narrow it to that. Are you denying that male-dominated societies were superior to your supposed matriarchal ones in science and art?

inb4
>w-well define "successful"!!!!

>>3102529
How about judging society by it's duration? Most Male-dominated societies last a few hundred years at most, with a couple topping a thousand. However, the Human Race is hundreds of thousands of years old, almost all of it pre-agriculture. Depending on who you ask, these societies are thought to have often been led by women.

>>3102537
So a tribe of goatfuckers who lived in a cave would be considered superior to the Roman empire by your criteria? Giving women the right to vote was probably the biggest mistake in recent history.

>>3102552
you sound slightly pooperpeeved

>>3102551
>Depending on who you ask, these societies are thought to have often been led by women

>>3102552
Those socities likely existed prior to the domestication of animals. I doubt many people got close enough to a goat to fuck it. The Romans, on the other hand, put their cocks in some really bizarre places.

>>3102548
>inb4
>w-well define "successful"!!!!
At least it's good you're capable of seeing the failings of your arguments.
>Are you denying that male-dominated societies were superior to your supposed matriarchal ones in science and art?
In sciences, most certainly. In art, it depends on your criteria, but I won't insult you and try to make you answer that. In sheer numbers? Well, yes, of course. Most (all) societies have been largely male-dominated.

>>3102552
Depending on your moral system, certainly. If we're talking pragmatically, we would have to use biological terms roughly applied to human societies, which certainly doesn't seem to be the case in this discussion.

>>3102405
yeah we're too afraid to tell women that they're bad at anything that requires anything above average brain function. jk we do it all the time

>>3102568
You tell that to your mother?

>>3102462
>If men and women are so equal,
This is where you are going wrong, anon. Men and women aren't equal. Even if intellect is the same -I'll refrain from comment here- men are on average physically stronger. They can produce higher volumes on production lines, carry bodies out of burning buildings better, defend their countries in a war better, and as such have a higher value to society.

On the whole men are, obviously, superior authors

but Woolf, the Brontes and Austen are all well-deserving of their respective places in the literary pantheon

>>3102533
>"Matriarchal elements" =/= matriarchy.
Actually, where I've used it there, yeah it does. A good metric is to look at things like how lineage is described, how wealth is controlled and passed down and who controls ethical and social norms. The Celts and the Picts would fulfill these, as well as many Proto-Germanic tribes. Cretans it's less clear, but it looks like women had a lot of involvement in and power over trade, and later Greek culture certainly show women having a lot of power over what one should do (things like the Oracle at Delphi, who held a lot of political power). It is, however a spectrum between matriarchy and patriarchy because so many factors are involved, it isn't just a question of whether the person at "the top" is a woman. Elizabethan England was not matriarchal to my mind, despite the ruler being a woman.

>>3102585
For some people matriarchy means the strict equivalent of patriarchy, with women being soldiers and generals and controlling everything. A very dualist view of gender and social norms.

>>3102581
All those skills may have been useful once, but today raw physical strength is mostly useful in a couple of special fields.

>>3102611
What? The vast majority of society is still at the bottom of the hierarchy; the labourers, armed forces, factory workers, police, firemen; working/ lower-middle class wage slaves.

>>3102569
My mom agrees that the greatest writers of all time were men.

>>3102611
not everyone is a scientist working in a lab...
war still exists
labor still exists
fires and crime still exist both of which we're better equipped to handle
and more that I cant think of at the moment

>>3102653

>everyone is a scientist working in a lab

And even that field is dominated by men.

>>3102567
wait, you're actually serious
no
this is
no way
that u actually
you're an idiot

>>3102658
>And even that field is dominated by men.

You can't blame the patriarchy for that one. Women have the same chance at university, and all employers offer equal opportunities now by law. It's not like there is a surplus of female scientists all sat wanting jobs.

>>3102667
You don't really understand the concept of patriarchy, do you? It goes beyond legal inequality to cultural tendencies. Women are encouraged to stay away from STEM subjects, pursuing the humanities instead.

>>3102667
same with mathematicians and engineers. They pay for college. They get to choose if they want to improve the world and be of any worth. They decide they would rather major in political science, realize that they cant pay for college any more, marry and become the stay at home mom they were fighting so hard against.

And then people ask why the world is run by men.

>>3102675
bullshit!
We are all told to do that!

>>3102665
Well, at least I express my arguments, capitalize and spell my words properly.

>>3102675
Not that they've made any notable contributions there either

>>3102726
We're not only talking about academia here though. Most nurses are female for example.

>>3102726
De Beauvoir, Kristeva and Butler are pretty notable ladies in the humanities, regardless of what you think about their contributions.

>>3102675

>Women are encouraged to stay away from STEM subjects, pursuing the humanities instead.

By who?

>>3102774
Cultural pressure, society. It may stem from the parents, or their friends, or teachers, or the way females are portrayed in popular entertainment. It comes from cultural/social inertia.

ITT: inferiors latching onto greatness because they have nothing else

>>3102467
>naturalistic fallacy
go live in a cave you hippie

>>3102774
Barbie, when she's programmed to say "Math class is hard!". The lack of female STEM teachers. Other girls who think math is a boys' thing. Cultural ideas appear in lots of places.

>>3102785

What a joke of a religion you got in your head.

Don't see what arguing about patriarchy/matriarchy has to do with literature, and this argument just reminds me of Adrienne Rich. Christ I fucking HATE that bitch. As a WOMAN, I hate that bitch.
Mary Shelley. Superior to Edgar Allen Poe in every fucking way. Bitch wrote fucking FRANKENSTEIN. What's more, bitch wrote it when she was like 20. Most of your "greats" didn't actually start writing the good stuff until they were dead.
On the other hand, Plath. Ahhh, Plath. My god I love Plath. Everything by Plath.

The main problem with this debate is you didn't define any kind of genre, or even name male authors to prove your point. "Hemmingway was awesome" - I haven't read Hemmingway, but apparently people like him.
That said, everyone seems to love Poe. Fuckface couldn't write. He just couldn't. Most of "the greats" were just up their own asses.

That said - Markus Zusak's "The Book Thief". <3
I also love the fuckshit out of fantasy novels - a genre for some reason aimed almost solely at kids - and it's difficult to find women who do that shit.

Also, society, on the whole, has favoured men over women - intellectual capacity does not come into it; fewer women got to practice writing to the point where it became their craft. That fact alone should shut down half the points.
Why is there even a men vs women debate? The species could not survive without either. Society as a whole would have collapsed, even if one could reproduce without the other.

>>3102811
Brilliant argument there.

>>3102811
>religion

>Not admitting men are better at mathematics
>Not admitting men are better at science
>Not admitting men are better at literature
>Not admitting men are better at art in general
>Not admitting men are better at philosophy

I'll admit women are better at some things, I just have to figure out what first...

>>3102818

That's the point - yours was far from rich. There was nothing to discuss but to mock your theology.

>>3102817
I dislike your way of posting, but let me say that you should read Ursula Le Guin's YA series the Annals of the Western Shore.

>>3102826
Where was God and spirituality involved exactly?

>>3102821

>the joke


>your head

>>3102830

Women cannot even understand it when their jewish ideas are mocked. Incredible.

>>3102831
Yeah, I suppose so. I didn't laugh at all, nor could identify any humor in that statement.

>>3102835
You're assuming a lot of things. And why can't you rather argue down my statements rather than simply mock them. I beg to be enlightened, really.

>>3102839

>I beg to be enlightened, really.

I beg for you to show me this salted earth you constructed your statue on, you poor result of globalism.

>>3102830

He's mocking a belief he found to be based in faith by calling it religious.

>>3102839
Don't you see that it's inherently absurd to claim that humans are social beings that transmit ideas and values to each other? Why, something as obviously false as that needs no counter-argument!

>>3102822
>implying great men are equal to lowly slaves like you

you are only good for physical labour and that's it

>>3102853

Reach in the dark with a mask of humor on. I'll see you on the other side.

Women are no good at these dick-waving contests, oddly enough.

>>3102829
Sorry, I've spent the rest of the day on R9K. It's like spending a week with stoners and then having to spend the next day at a teetotallers house.
It does ring a bell. Can't say I've seen it for sale anywhere though. :/

>>3102881
I do most of my shopping online. And I was talking about the smileys and the caps. I'm too much of a 4chdrone not to frown at that.

>>3102847
>globalism
What the fuck does this has to do with social pressure?

>>3102817

>Also, society, on the whole, has favoured men over women

I wonder why.

Go read 'A Room Of One's Own,' faggot.

>>3103231
It's been a hundred years and there are still no great women writers

>>3102817
>Mary Shelley
>better than Edgar Alan Poe
holy shit your autism is astounding, dear fellow

>>3103240
It was written by one.

>>3103240
Morrison.

>>3102817
Typical woman. Can never present an argument and states her misguided opinion as fact. Go play with your dolls, little girl.

>>3102096

Could I get a link or some more context to this picture?

>>3103255
Nah, that's just the Internet.

>>3102228

I do admit, I fucking love this woman's writings.

Every writer at some point thinks, "This is bullshit. No one's going to fall for this." Unless they really believe they have something original and good to say , the women find something else to do while the men, lacking a stronger shame gene, say, "Fuck it. Print it."

>>3103260
It's a slutwalk I think. Some girls show boobs (because feminism). A smartass shows his dick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e6CBqYxFcF4

>>3103309

>lacking a stronger shame gene

wut

I mean I guess you could say men tend to be more self-confident. A "shame gene"?

I don't think self-confidence is behind all those "Life sucks" and "I'm a regular loser. Bla blabla" books.

>>3103260
>Could I get a link or some more context to this picture?

"Because he's the hero that men deserve, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a Dick Knight..."

Debatable whether they're better, but there's no doubt women write more.

Just go to amazon and peruse the self published novels, in any genre except sci-fi. It's woman author after woman author.

Like contemporary fantasy novels? Prepare to browse past ten thousand Twilight clones just to get to something original.

Gentlemen, let science answer the question once for all definitively. A simple experiment has yielded yet another unexpected definitive answer. Since men were given an unfair start due to a belief in woman lack of a reasoning faculty, let's create another start: 2007. Number of men to write a book worthy of my attention: 0. Number of women: 0. 0=0.

The only female authors that I sincerely appreciate are the Modernists. It makes me sad. It may be part of the reason that I avoid writing female protagonists.

Men and women writers operate in totally different modes of thought. Men are constantly striving for bigger ideas (unless they're YA authors or something) to outdo the males before them.

Women just like to agree with each other over and over, or else they're disagreeing with males (in order to agree with and empower other women). Even in this latter, parenthesized approach, they are constantly striving to be greater than or equal to males. In other words, they're constantly proving they can climb a ladder while the men are trying to reach for something beyond the ladder.

Fucking get your shit straight, women, and stop feeling bad for yourself.

This thread is retarded on so many levels... it reeks of mediocrity to such a point you don't even want to address the issues underlying those statements.

>>3103560
>Women just like to agree with each other over and over,

The Virtue of Selfishness and An Invisible Thread are not agreeing with each other.