/lit/ - Literature

So George R.R. Martin posed for a pin-p calendar, huh?

>>3120817
Is that really what this is?

Because I probably wouldn't mind seeing Neil Gaiman and Ray Bradbury in some alluring poses. GRRM and Rothfuss, not so much.

Absolutely, but that's SF fandom, unfortunately.

>>3120820
It's got hot female characters from their books in it.

>>3120824
Yep. People often forget how sexist science fiction and fantasy fandom is.

>>3120828
Oh, bleh. That's boring.

Who are they doing from Beagle?

>>3120835
Maybe they saved some /mlp/ clop picture and recolored it to be the last unicorn

>>3120805
So OP - where can I buy this?

>>3120805
Never mind OP I found it.
http://thetinkerspacks.bigcartel.com/product/pre-order-2013-pin-up-calendar

Women don't like being 'objectified' when they're unattracted to the 'objectifier.' They're fine with it when they are attracted. They'd like to have their cake and eat it too, and aren't in the least bit concerned about being consistent.

However, some of the men who were once unattractive/rejected 'objectifiers' work their brains into knots trying to stop having sexual feelings so that they'll become attractive to women. Which is kind of like refusing to play a game at all in the hope that, by not playing and thus not losing, you'll somehow start winning.

This isn't sexist.

>>3120805
>http://thetinkerspacks.bigcartel.com/product/pre-order-2013-pin-up-calendar

I guess you're going to cry even more when Obama loses tonight, huh.

>>3121749

>Women don't like
>They're fine with it when

Hmm yes please tell us the opinions of all women everywhere, oh expert.

>>3120805

better go hang yourself in the garage, as it's the only solution.

If it was an attractive man in sexualized clothing on a ladder holding a book, would it be sexist?

>>3121798
no, it would be gay

>>3121802

Why can't it be both?

>>3120820
Bradbury is dead you sick fuck you want to see a corpse!

>>3120824
>>3120828
itt: literary professors who think its the 1950s

>>3121787
Sorry. Truly. It was extremely presumptuous of me to think that women enjoy receiving attention from males that they are attracted to.
In truth, women are not 'attracted,' ever. Sexual arousal in women only occurs passively, when mild mannered lawful citizens like yourself get down on one knee offering roses and a sonnet pledging your undying servitude. If it doesn't work, add more roses and sonnets. If it doesn't work the third time, destiny is against you, and you must devote your life to blogging about social justice in a monastery somewhere.

5 of the authors works selected are women, and it appears the pinups based on their worse loosely use them as a model
Or at least the N.K. Jemisin one anyway

5 of the authors works selected are women, and it appears the pinups based on their work loosely use them as a model
Or at least the N.K. Jemisin one anyway

>>3120805
Sexist, sure, but the real horror is that list.
Charlene Harris, are you fucking kidding me?

>>3121787

Maybe not all. Maybe just 99%

I agree, OP. This...this must stop.

>>3120805
Why is sexualizing something the same as believing that the sexualized thing is inferior? Isn't that what sexist means - belief in the inferiority of a gender?

Jesus, I thought it meant pin-ups of the authors for one awful second as well. I wasn't sure which would be worse, GRRM or Charlaine Harris.

>>3122156
I'm dyyyyying.

More like SEXIEST
Anyway, a pin-up calendar isn't necessarily sexist but this is pretty bad. The Bradbury one doesn't even appear to be a character; it's just some slag holding Fahrenheit 451.

everyone, don't tell anyone
http://bibliobsession.free.fr/lacage/index.html

>>3121833
Objectification isn't a euphemism for sexual attraction numbnuts.

>>3121761
It would upset me if he lost, I might even cry. He'll win though.

>>3122156
You should see pictures of Jo Walton. Her books are great but she is ugly as sin.

SSOOOOOOOOO.

For:
Jim Butcher we have Dresden Files - Molly Carpenter.
Patrick Rothfuss we have The Wise Man's Fear - Felurian.
Charlaine Harris we have The Southern Vampire Mysteries - Sookie Stackhouse.


Can you tell me the name of the book and the name of the character for the rest?

>>3121802

>>3120805
>those heels
>that ladder
she gonna die.

>>3122185
Great at writing tho

inb4 help ive fallen and i cant get up

I wasn't offended until I saw that the name of the charity it was benefitting was Heifer International. LMAO.

>>3122203
Can someone tell me the others please?

>>3120805

I find the fact that you exist infuriating and sexist

>>3122180

No, it's a euphemism for men being attracted to women more pretty than the one who spots the "objectification".

This thread is emblematic not only of everything wrong with /lit/, but of everything wrong with literature, academia, and the western world in general. You are the cancer that is killing human civilization, feminists, and you deserve a slow, painful death for it.

>that bookshelf
clearly that woman is some manchild's mother and she's cleaning the room

>>3122203

GRRM is Cersei Lannister, and the Robin Hobb one seems to be a fucking crazy Malta Vestrit, from Liveship Traders.

>>3122397
From a comment on another blog:
>Sookie Stackhouse
>Phèdre no Delaunay de Montrève (that Jacqueline Carey chick)
>Amalthea
>Felurian (Patrick Rothfuss)
>Media
>Cersei Lannister (GRRM)
>Oree Shoth
>Mercy Thompson

There are 4 girls missing though.

>>3122598
Why do you reject feminism? Western civilization was evil and barbaric for most of its existence. You know that, right? It was sexist, racist, and crippled by religious superstitions.

I think Robin Hobb's character is meant to be Malta Vestrit as well due to the red thing on her forehead, though I'm pretty sure that character was dark-haired and the outfit seems kind of jarring. But a cheesy pin-up calendar is probably somewhat less than accurate for all characters.

Sexy is a marketing ploy. It's not sexist at all. It's basically just bribery.

>>3122649
i'd rather reject feminism than history

>>3122649
but that barely had anything to do with the fact that half of us don't have a penis. We're just generally a shitty species and the whole "being human" is actually a pretty new thing.
Take india for example. They had a woman heading the government in the 20s, something the rest of the world would have had an aneurysm over at the time, but they still throw women screaming onto burning pyres of their dead husbands.
My point is, humanity is fucking crazy.
The argument "It used to be barbaric!" doesn't hold any water at all.

>>3122649

>evil

>>3122649

I'm religious, sexist and racist. You just explained why feminism, and its satanic, socialistic supporters - like yourself - sicken me.

>>3121798
Yes, it would be.

>>3123726
Just because you are religious, sexist, and racist does not mean that you have to believe all other people should be as well. I don't agree with you, but I'm certainly not sickened by you.

Why can't someone think differently than you and still be an equally valid person?

>>3122684
damn can you teach my history tutorials instead of a billion retarded feminists

>>3122688
Some pretty rancid stuff happened in the distant past, you can't deny it.

>>3123726
Troll

The most "sexist" or misogynistic books I've read were all written by women.
go figger

>>3123954
I doubt you read through any of these books

>>3123954
> The most "sexist" or misogynistic books I've read were all written by women.

Yeah, this.

>>3123954
>>3124165

My experience is the opposite.

What do when conflicting anecdotes?

NO

>>3122598
This nigger knows what's up.

>>3122598

Why can't people understand that feminism is an enormously wide body of thought and no feminist is representational of 'feminism' as an ideal?

>tfw formerly quiet, neutral kids are becoming radicalized and mobilized towards anti-feminism for no reasons that aren't imaginary, anecdotal bullshit, or based off of their limited experiences with thinking critically about self perception

>>3124242
>>3124242
And it's exactly the same with homosexuals.

>>3121749
That second paragraph... How did you... Fuck you, man.

>>3121749
>work their brains into knots
Are you one of those mongs who can't into nuance and thinks there is actually a campaign to control your THOUGHTS because there are campaigns to encourage your BEHAVIOR? Can't into that dichotomy, friend?

Nobody cares what you think or how you feel or what you fantasize about. All that's expected of you is that you not treat women ONLY as sexual objects.

I enjoy busty librarians, but that calendar is just simply of poor quality.

>>3123758

Because most people who don't agree with me *do* believe I shouldn't be allowed to think it

Yeah, especially since male pin-up calendars are all about the personality of the depicted model.

>inb4 they are for gays
>inb4 feminists running into contradictions existing since the sexual "liberation" of women

>>3124281
Geez, calm down. If it helps you sleep at night, most women aren't being objectified because they are hideous hambeasts and/or are already expired (from a reproductionary point of view).
I sure hope the feelings of a calendar picture won't be hurt.

fantasy books aren't literature

>>3123750

So sexuality is sexist? Typical woman - asexual as fuck

>>3124995

Objectification =/= sexuality

>>3125035
Objectification is actually a large part of sexuality, and has been ever since the first cavemen drew crude dicks and boobs on walls. Who gave you authority to deem what is and is not a legitimate part of human sexuality?

>>3125041

I didn't say it wasn't part of sexuality, I said it doesn't equate with sexuality.

Dunce.

>>3120840

You, you're that attention seeking trip from /pol/, please go away, do not defile /lit/.

Sorry OP I can't find it in me to give a fuck. People like it so it exists, you can get upset over it but it's of no use, there's no changing human nature.

It's just drawings, there's no harm, in case they use actual models well then they made their own choice.

I haven't got a fucking scooby what the Pratchett one is supposed to be.

i can tell she finds my literacy sexy. she wants to fuck.

>>3125054
>implying all trips aren't attention seeking shitsticks

>>3125041
>>Who gave you authority to deem what is and is not a legitimate part of human sexuality?

Muh vag

>>3125049

But feminists believe it is an illegitimate component of sexuality, therefore his point stands - what gives feminazis the right to say what is or is not a legitimate component of sexuality?

I won't say "women", since the feminists will throw a fit, even if this is all about women; let me use "people" instead. So I'm just saying that, regarding the personality of a lot of people, they are actually better off being treated as objects.
And since I can't tell feminists from trolls (fry.jpg), I will now hide this hideous thread.

http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

>>3125695
Typical sociology, absolutely no rigour.

>>3125695
>http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html
Women read more, men just write better.

>>3125647
>muh hole

That feel when women are so selfish they had to invent an entire school of thought - feminism - dedicated to nothing but their own selfishness

>>3127571

That feel when blacks are so selfish they had to invent an entire school of thought - the civil rights movement - dedicated to nothing but their own selfishness

>>3127710
That feel when humans are so selfish they had to invent entire schools of thought - philosophy, science, art - dedicated to nothing but their own selfishness

>>3127710
I agree, fuck the civil rights movement, fuck the gay rights movement and fuck feminism and feminists.

Those three movements have done nothing but work to destroy western civilization, and have done more to this end then anything since the demoralization of white males during and after the great wars which paved the way for the acceptance of those ideologies

>>3127721
Philosophy, science, and art are te exact opposite of fields devoted to selfishness. Their primary purpose is the betterment of others.

Go back to your women's studies class and resume schlicking to Andrea Gibson

>>3127786
>Philosophy, science, and art are te exact opposite of fields devoted to selfishness.

Haha. Sure.

>>3124179
It's called being wrong.
Go read the cosmopolitan encouraging women to treat their men like animals. Often in illegal ways, like property damage or even physical abuse.

>>3127865

Go read anything written before 1950 encouraging men to treat their women like animals. Often in fully legal ways, as laws have little to do with ethical narratives

I'm seeing a whole lot of racist faggotry, and not a lot of broads.

>>3128093
>Go read anything written before 1950 encouraging men to treat their women like animals.

Men and women are animals.

>>3128108

Your point? 'Treat like animals' is a common phrase, and there's scant that's vague about what it refers to.

>>3128108
>Go read anything written before 1950 encouraging men to treat their women like animals.

There is nothing wrong with giving a woman a correctional slap once and again. Society is drowning in political correctness, with cis, slutwalks, homofags, transqueersexuals, hate crime, religious tolerance, relativism. We have to tiptoe around under some false notion that everything is equal and valid, afraid to rise up from the dregs as a dominant pack leader. Society has gone to shit if you cant even give someone a swift backhand and call them a cunt. Not everyone is equal because I am at the top of the pack. and if you don't want to be here too, you are a weak willed little pussy who deserves to get pushed around socially, economically, politically and physically.

>>3128190

>There is nothing wrong with giving a woman a correctional slap once and again.

If ever any of you looking at this post were in doubt that feminism has a place...

>>3128197
>feminism
There's anther ridiculous notion. Can prove to me that women are equal to men? No, you can't. So you will run around flapping your vagina and wishing you were the dominant gender.

>>3128235

is can't into ought, compadre.

>>3128197
Why should women have special slap-avoiding privileges? Wouldn't that be sexist?

>>3128242

It comes to whether or not you think correctional slaps are acceptable behavior.

>>3128250
i don't see how physical pain is objectively any worse than psychological pain, which women have no qualms about inflicting on their poor partners.

>>3128269

Men similarly inflict psychological pain on their partners. Is it ethically sound to inflict pyschological or physical pain on others?

Man I wish some of these MRAs would actually read up on some feminist theories so they could actually attempt a critique at some of it. The hate spewing is just fucking boring

>>3128307
I did. I read that Naomi Wolf book about the vagina-brain connection, and now i'm too scared to read any more crackpot feminism stuff.

>>3128315
I guess you'll always sound like you don't know what you're talking about then. What a shame

>>3122203
Yeine is the female for N.K. Jemisin the book's name is The Hundred Thousand KIngdom.

>>3128315
Aww no way. Don't read that. Certainly don't take that as the feminist standard. From what I've read on it it is crackpot. I can't believe you read the whole thing.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

>>3128197

I read his post and still don't think there's a need for feminism. Parents slap children, men slap women, it's the natural order of things.

ITT:

Ugly women complaining about how pretty women get all the attention.

The woman being 'objectified' like its.
She gets the compliments, the door held for her, the gifts, the drinks, and her pick of a flock of hot men. Occasional the ugly burly one with a big cock for street cred.

Ugly bitches complain about how horrible it must be to use ones physical advantage. This is because like most women, ugly women have no personality. Where the pretty women have looks to counter that, the ugly ones don't so they come to the illogical conclusion its a man's fault for them being mentally inadequate.

Holy fuck what the hell is this /lit/

Reported. Hidden. Called the cops. Called the FBI. Called the National Guard. Closed the curtains. Bought a dog. Gave an interview on Fox News.

>>3130952
this post made me more misandric than misogynist.

fucking hate this board

>>3122325
srsly? i laughed and americlapped

>>3130981
It's obviously true.

>>3123761
There is a difference between evil and bad

Can we get back on topic?
Why is it bad to be objectified? If the female population thought of me as an item to be used strictly for their sexual pleasure, I would be delighted

>>3131559
>Why is it bad to be objectified?
Dude, nobody really understands womanlogic. Just let them get annoyed at shit, smile, pretend you support their latest issue, and they soon chill out again.

HELP! MEN ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO MY GENDER AND ARE EXPRESSING THAT ATTRACTION THROUGH MEDIA! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

>>3131566
>pretend you support
Playing pretend is not a man's game. I stopped playing pretend a lot time ago. I refuse to listen to your lies, evil woman.

>>3131578
you're inadvertently promoting rape culture, dickhead.

>>3131580
>Playing pretend is not a man's game.
What? Y-you actually contradict women when they start rambling? in real life, not just interwebs? Teach me how, oh enlightened one. If I do anything but agree it only increases the rage.

>>3131581
>rape culture
About as valid an idea as the one that Obama is secretly a Musim Kenyan.

>>3131581
The clothes you're wearing are inadvertently promoting rape culture.
The makeup you put are on inadvertently promoting rape culture.
The things you say, the way you say them, the way you walk and the way you stand, all that is inadvertently promoting rape culture.

Pussyhead.

Why do the boards always get more misogynistic on Friday nights? This is a rhetorical question.

>>3131559
You'd like it if no one took your opinions seriously? If you see objectification as anything other than losing rights (/status/whatever), you're essentially a paraplegic saying no one has the right to complain about broken legs.

>>3131602
>Why do the boards always get more misogynistic on Friday nights? This is a rhetorical question.
Because not taking first world white woman problems like the fact that men like looking at attractive women seriously is not misogyny. This is a rhetorical answer.

>>3131581
>appreciating a woman's body
>wanting to have sex with attractive women

does not equal rape

>>3131602
Well to be totally honest, I think of myself as a logical person who can think critically in all situations. This, combined with a bit of charm, has gotten me far in life thus far. I genuinely believe that if women aren't taken seriously, it's more likely that they're spouting silly ideas which simply aren't the most intelligent ones in the room, not because they're female.

>>3131594
>>3131581

Using the term "rape culture" inadvertently promotes rape culture

>>3130302
thinking that natural is right is the naturalistic fallacy
whacking your kids is retarded since positive reinforcement has been shown to be more effective and doesn't make your kids unstable

>dats sexists to show a sexy women
>proceed to go on slutwalk were they say the are proud of being sluts
>women logic

>>3120805
>I find the fact that this exists infuriating and sexist.

Then maybe you should start working on the "I find this infuriating" part rather than the "this exists" part.

>>3128307
>MRA

Is that some sort of Oprah Book Club jargon?

>>3131594
>The clothes you're wearing are inadvertently promoting rape culture.

Have you not understood the slutwalks at all?

>>3131636

Natural is right. There's no fallacy there.

>positive reinforcement

hahaha oh wow. youre the sort of person who would insist that toy guns be banned from school

>>3131643
>implying anybody gives a shit

If neckbreads want to masturbate to a calender who's to say we should stop them. I'm just disappointed that certain people can't view female characters as just normal characters that don't lead you want to masturbate to badly drawn images of those characters.

Nearly everyone in this thread needs a healthy dose of sex-positive feminism. It really is the best way.

>>3131812
the problem isn't with a porn calendar as such, it's a problem with SF fandom's production of such and more generally SF fandom's attitude towards sex and women

ie, it's only a problem because of its context

>>3130302
Scumbag.

Let's show nature who's boss.

>>3131812
>Nearly everyone in this thread needs a healthy dose of sex-positive feminism.
I'll go first. - ahem - Look at me everybody I have a vagina so I am right you are all horible because your are men and I know you think I just have penis envy but theres more to it than that like rape culture and vagina-brain connections i am a feminist and I want to have a penis i mean no i hate penis i mena no im not a lesbian although theres nothing wrong with ahgd sstygks s lssssjls;'

>>3130302

>>3128239

C'mon.

>>3131826

How much have you read on feminist theory? Specifically the sex-positive variety?

I would love to have a cute tall girl peg my tight little anus and slap my manly ass while I cream right into a 50 year old milf.

>>3131821

Aww, is this your first period?

>>3131831
>How much have you read on feminist theory?

Honestly, not very much. There are so many issues that rank higher to me than the complaints of modern white western women, that I never really have time to read it. I have read a fair bit on egalitarianism though, so I'm sure I could bias some of that towards women.

>>3131842
>I would love to have a cute tall girl peg my tight little anus and slap my manly ass while I cream right into a 50 year old milf.

who wouldn't love that, anon. who wouldn't. certainly no one i want to talk to.

>>3131849

What about feminism as a whole is geared toward modern white western women? Egalitarianism cannot exist without feminism, given where we are today.

>>3131857
Because you don't need to burn you bras and go full Emily Davison anymore. You are as equal as you can be given our biological differences. So I don't see feminism as worth studying outside of historical interest.

Isn't equality supposed to not have anything to do with differences?

>>3131868

>burn your bras and go full Emily Davison

Is only applicable to certain bodies of feminist thought.

>You are as equal as you can be given our biological differences.

Are you certain of that? You've done a thorough analysis of cultural superstructures and have come to the conclusion that equality exists between the sexes to the extent allowed by biology? Are you serious?

>tfw I have just finished military service because I have a cock, but women have a free choice of joining the military because they have vaginas.
>tfw I could have spent that time at a decent university, but I have been denied because the matriarchy said it's not fair to force women into the military.
>tfw women have the best pick of jobs now due to fancy degrees.
>tfw, even if I did have the same qualifications, most employers are bound by law to display no sexual discrimination. So women end up getting hired over better male candidates.
>tfw, there is millions in funding to prevent female victims of domestic violence, yet women hitting men isn't taken seriously.
>tfw aesthetic female genital mutilation is illegal, yet I had part of my cock cut off.
>tfw woman are given default custody over a child.
>tfw despite all this, I still have to put up with the slutwalks in the city centre, but am screamed at and called a misogynist if I dare to discuss any of these points.

>>3131877

Go the fuck back to reddit, christ. You're nauseating.

>crying about circumcision

You're probably a Hitchens fan.

Oh look, it's this thread again.

>>3131887

Not to mention the obligatory follow-up post. Again.

>>3131887

>>3131881
It is funny to me that everyone on 4chan will tell their opponents to go back to reddit - on both sides of any given argument. Racists and anti-racists, feminists and misogynists - all will tell their opponents to fuck off back to reddit. That's just how terrible reddit is.

(but i fully agree with you, that shit about men having it so hard is duuuuuuuumb)

>>3124281

>I TYPE in intermittent CAPITAL letters BECAUSE I can't into EXPRESSIVE writing.

pic related is you

>>3131899
>That's just how terrible reddit is.

Reddit's not really that bad if your on a good subreddit.Obviously star away from r/feminism, r/atheism The thing is every single other site and forum refers to 4chan as the asshole of the internet. because 4chan really is the worst place on the internet. even worse than efukt and reddit combined. even 420 and youtube comments say how bad this place is.

>>3131887
This guy is an international hero.

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

>>3131908
>comic sans
conservatives confirmed for disembrained

>>3131920
>that video
>those comments
>not confirming men as being a bunch of dumb dogs

>>3131920
He is brave man. and a real Hero.

>>3123761
As opposed to all that rancid stuff that happened in the future?

>>3131927
And a real human being.

>>3131625
This is mostly anecdotal, but there was a news article about a woman scientist who transitioned (i.e. ftm); part of the story that stuck out to me was that after the person gave the lecture someone in the audience said something to the effect of "He's a much better scientist than his sister." You can't assume most people are rational egalitarians.

Interesting how often men "father" ideas—Marxism, Keynesian economics and so on—yet even feminism itself is without a founding mother

>>3131935
>yet even feminism itself is without a founding mother
What about Rosa Parks?

>>3131943
what

Objectification under consent is perfectly compatible with many forms of feminism.

Equality is overrated.

The process of obtaining equality requires feminisation of males and masculinisation of females.

I hope I don't have to tell you how that makes both genders less attractive.

>>3131943
Learn yourself some.

>>3131949
"Rosa Louise McCauley Parks was a civil rights activist, whom the U.S. Congress called "the first lady of civil rights", and "the mother of the freedom movement"

>>3127830
>science
>devoted to selfishness

Care to explain that one. AFAIK science is the persuit of objective truth.

>>3131964

Science is the pursuit of intersubjective consensus.

>>3131946
that isn't what equality is you stupid inferior fuck

>>3131964
>objective truth

LOL

>>3131963
>"the first lady of civil rights", and "the mother of the freedom movement"

neither of those things are feminism, tho. Rosa Parks was a wonderful lady, and she may even have been the mother of the civil rights movement, but that's something different from feminism, which predates her.

>>3131969
Just coz she's a girl it doesn't mean she is necessarily inferior.

>>3131973
Yeah, but you said about how there are "fathers" of things but no mothers.

>>3131964
>implying that every human act isn't primarily driven by selfish intentions

Even altruism. You wouldn't help others if it didn't make you feel good about yourself or bring you another form of benefit.

>>3131976
Who are the fathers of feminism?

>>3131976
More in the sense of "-isms" than people being called "the mother of ____"

>Female to female inheritance has, of course, always been problematic in a patriarchal society in which the legacy passed down from male to male is understood as natural and of central importance. Even today men can be unselfconsciously honoured as the fathers of artistic movements, scientific fields, inventions, ideas. Advances in thought are reified into systems by being named for their male founders: so we have Marxism, Freudianism, Darwinism. It is no accident that feminism was not named after an individual woman. If, sometimes, a mother for feminism is mooted - Mary Wollstonecraft, for example - it is always tentatively, with irony, or in the spirit of daughterly insurrection ... In a patriarchal society the mother's role of subordination and self-sacrifice is what the daughter does not want to inherit.
- Jane Spencer

>>3131984

>>3131975
>selfish

Nothing annoys me more than amateur psychologists engaging in some extreme reductionism.

>>3131995
>Marxism, Freudianism, Darwinism. It is no accident that feminism was not named after an individual woman.

You really are a dumb fuck.

>>3131877
This has a point for point symmetry with popular feminist arguments yet the only response is dismissal and contempt.

Nice job on that equality feminism.

>>3131877

>women end up getting hired over better male candidates.

Do you have a source for this?

>women hitting men isn't taken seriously.

Is a huge problem, and part of feminist thinking in many circles.

>it's not fair to force women into the military

This becomes a difficult issue with regard to biology, but it's worth having a discussion over, you're correct. I'd argue that mandatory military service is unethical at its core, and to force men into it exclusively is the same. This isn't a qualm with feminism, necessarily.

Genital mutilation is a complicated issue as well, and I'll have to read more into it. Circumcision of any kind is clearly outdated and provides little benefit, if any.

There is room for compatibility with many of these issues and feminism. You've brought up a number of social problems in a number different contexts that play on sex and gender in a harmful way, to both men and women, and you shouldn't be called a misogynist for wanting to discuss these issues. It's important that an open conversation be had on all sides of any aisle.

>>3131968
>>3131972

I said science was pursuing it, not that it gets there.

I was trying to use the soft philosophical nonsense language /lit/ seems to be in love with; obviously I have yet to grasp its intricacies.

>>3132245

Philosophy is concerned with the nature of reality.

Science is considered with prediction and observation of the physical.

>>3132252

cerned*

>>3132252
I would argue that predictive models and observation of the physical world is simply the mechanism used to work towards an objectively true model of reality.

There seems to be this assumption that science can never touch the softer subjects that are nothing to do with physical interaction of matter/energy. I think science will get there eventually we just don’t have the tools or background knowledge.

I like to think that science is still laying the groundwork and once we have a proper grip on emergence modelling all these philosophical/sociological arguments will be answered scientifically. Then all we will have to do is convince the plebeians the models are valid (see global warming).

Back to the main topic, I was going to order one of these calendars but just because OP disapproves I shall order 3.

>>3132277

The scientific method is reliant on language, which is limited in ways that philosophy is not. Mathematics and science will always be only part of the larger picture.

>>3132282
I don’t even know what to say to that. So philosophy is -not- reliant on language? If you are looking for a field that is not constrained by anything, language, beliefs, preconceptions etc, math is your only option.

>>3132298
>If you are looking for a field that is not constrained by anything, language, beliefs, preconceptions etc, math is your only option.
It's bound by all of those things, and more!

>>3132298

Yes, philosophy, - a mode of thinking - is not limited by language in the sense that math - a language - is.

>>3132301
Explain to me how what someone believes alters the way a mathematical function works.

Explain to me how language can alter a mathematical model. So long as internal consistency is maintained a formula in base 10 will work in base 8 or 2 or 57. The symbols used in math are needed to convey ideas to others, but the ideas themselves are independent of how they are represented.
It is only when you start using mathematical theory in models of reality that you start to get contradicting ideas. Only then are preconceptions able to influence what is considered to be “true”

The math you studied in high school was not math at its core, you were taught to follow instructions and plug numbers into formulae you did not actually understand like a good little monkey. We are taught that math is important because it is used in so many of the “useful” career paths. While this may be the case actual mathematical research is so abstract and disconnected from reality that most good school grades in math are more representative of the students’ abilities to follow orders than actual ability in the subject.

>>3132308
>math is a language
I can only respond to that with an image macro

>>3132336

Explain to me what mathematics and science can tell us about ethics or the cogito.

>>3132339
Nothing, because those things dont exist. Owned fucker/.

>>3132339
As I said in >>3132277 I see the body of scientific knowledge and the tools it can use as still insufficient to properly analyse the specifics of cognition but when we are able to properly understand all the physical interactions that occur within our bodies emergence modelling should be able to accurately predict and explain how our brain structures inevitably result in consciousness and be able to accurately predict both how particular ethical models emerged and how changing those models may or may not impact an individual’s thinking and the behaviour of society as a whole.

All that aside, do you really want to comparatively value schools of thought based on their practical applications? Do you, as a proponent of philosophy, really want to go there?

>>3122173
>http://bibliobsession.free.fr/lacage/index.html
sauce for pic

>>3122203
J.K. Jemisin appears to be the author
the Gaiman one appears to simply be his wife Amanda Palmer
Jacqueline Careys appears to be the character from Cushiels Dart

>>3132378
I don't know, it was in a forum with a bunch of similar pictures but I don't think I saved it anywhere. Another pic from the same place, I think.

>>3132382
Gaiman is married to Amanda Palmer, the singer? omG my sides are currently seeking therapy for PTSD!!!
srsly I don't care about Gaiman but Palmer's p terrible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rAbrfRleY

>>3132336
>math is a set of abstract of symbols manipulated according to certain rules
>not a language
?

>>3132382
The author's name is NK Jemisin, not JK, and I believe that's the main character from her book The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. Not 100% sure though.

I mean, I could say I was 100% sure, because there's no chance that anyone else on here read that book. But I don't recall the main character well enough to say if that's her.

>>3132527
>Thinking math is dependent on the symbols used to represent it.

Damn /lit/, I would assume you would at least be able to identify and define language.

Math is the study of patterns and relationships in numbers, often this takes the form of relationships between spatial measurements (geometry) relationships between variables according to a pre-defined set of rules etc etc. Math is actually very hard to define because it is so abstract.

The symbols used to represent particular mathematical concepts are just a convenient way of conveying ideas, the ideas can be represented by any formal system of symbols and are thus indepentant of them.

>>3132336
>Explain to me how what someone believes alters the way a mathematical function works.
They're purely abstract concepts based on nothing but belief one way or another.
>Explain to me how language can alter a mathematical model.
There are plenty of cases where misinterpretation has led to improper models, usually with distributions. Often it's the case that someone says something like "there are n kinds of whatever", and then someone assumes it means "n-modal distribution in whatever". Mathematical models rely upon descriptions of whatever they're modelling, this is where language plays a big role.
>So long as internal consistency is maintained
laughinggodel.jpg
>a formula in base 10 will work in base 8 or 2 or 57.
Different bases are not different languages by a long stretch.
>The symbols used in math are needed to convey ideas to others, but the ideas themselves are independent of how they are represented.
Are they? Do you think we all have the same concept of what it means to even add or multiply or take powers of? One of the great things in mathematics is that it has a formal language at its core that prevents reliance on assuming we have the same idea about certain things, because we don't.
>It is only when you start using mathematical theory in models of reality that you start to get contradicting ideas.
Not at all in either sense. Mathematics can contradict itself without reality, there has yet to be any great contradiction in the mathematical model of counting sheep either.

>>3132604
>Only then are preconceptions able to influence what is considered to be “true”
You've just steamrolled over the whole "maths is just like ideas and not symbols" bs.
>The math you studied in high school..
I'm confident that even in high school I had a better understanding of maths than you do now, your knowledge seems rather limited. That was a few years ago too, and it's not like I didn't take a maths intensive subject at uni.

>>3127786
fuck u scumbucket

>>3128190
neckbeard detected

>>3127786

>>3130302
you are scum

>>3132584
"Language" is a broad term, and I haven't really been following the discussion this is a part of. If the contention is whether or not there's an underlying reality in relationships of numbers, I don't have any particular issue. The languages we use to describe these relationships are theoretically flawed on an abstract level, but I'm not particularly versed in numbers theory.

Can everyone please stop discussing meaningless shit and post the pics from the calendar so I can get a chubby going on?

>>3133601
They're terrible.

>>3133601
no problem boss

>>3133618
you're right, but man do I have a thing for bubblegum pink hair.

>>3133618
The only good pictures are the cover ones.

>>3133618
Can't fap to this.

>>3133630
Oh lawd that's extra lewd.

>>3131647
>Natural is right
there is no right, only rationality. But, in the interests of consistency, I do hope you don't take any supplements that aren't naturally occuring

>hahaha oh wow
cool argument