/lit/ - Literature

Troll thread. Do not post.

>>3609956
>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

100% true.

>>3609960
is this not literature? Just because you (apparently) disagree doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it

>>3609962
This is why I only have sex with men.

>>3609962
Would you prefer tall, broad-shouldered women?

He sounds like he had some unfortunate experiences with women then made a lot of assumptions to justify his hatred. That being said, some of this rings true with my experiences. Not all, and he's certainly exaggerating

The point is, which most people forget, is that Schopenhauer dismissed women in general. In the sense that he dismissed the average woman. He was a misanthropist. He disliked the average person and among the average he disliked women more than the average men. But he also stated that truly exceptional women had the ability to grow far greater than man. So in the end, all the women that are able of comprehending Schopenhauer , are decidedly worthy.

So if women truly read and comprehend Schopenhauer, you are not the type he dismissed. You are the type he adored.

Does he ever justify his idea that women are worse at reasoning than men? He keeps bringing it up

>>3610071
So, basically, Schopenhauer was /r9k/.

>>3610080
no, /r9k/ will never admit that a woman can be better than a man

>>3609956

Confirmation bias due to extreme virginity.

Schopey had it. Now you do. Congratulations.

>>3610112
>Confirmation bias due to extreme virginity.

I think that, I'm going to steal that and pretend I made it up

>>3610112
I have literally never met a female who wasn't a self absorbed cunt.

>>3610121

PROTIP: You're probably hanging around shitty people because you're a shitty person yourself.

>>3610133
>implying the majority isn't terrible

>>3610136

I can't imagine how you can judge an entire gender and think the problem lies anywhere but with you.

>>3610080
Not at all. He wasn't a bitter virgin, in fact he's supposed to have had many romanced. He just felt inclined to argue certain male/female differences. Fairly, as far as I'm concerned. I've never met a woman who've read Schopenhauer that outright dismissed him.

>>3610042
>Not wanting to be carried like a princess by an amazon

>>3610071
Classic philosophy right there.

If you can understand what I'm saying, you are smart!

>>3610164
>Because Marquet won the lawsuit, Schopenhauer made payments to her for the next twenty years.[23] When she died, he wrote on a copy of her death certificate, Obit anus, abit onus ("The old woman dies, the burden is lifted").[24]

sounds bitter

>n the year 1831, Schopenhauer fell in love with a girl named Flora Weiss. At a boat party in Germany he made his advance by offering her a bunch of grapes. Flora’s diary records this event as follows: “I didn’t want the grapes because old Schopenhauer had touched them, so I let them slide, quite gently into the water.”

top lel. confirmed for beta /r9k/ status

>muh pure virgin

>I didn’t want the grapes because old Schopenhauer had touched them

she made the right choice

spooky schops pls go

>>3609962
He should have went on about their natural state. These pussy bleeding, hairy creatures are a pest.

>>3609962
You skipped the best part, where he realized 150 years ago exactly why women are terrible and men are great:

>This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

>>3609962
>stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex

Maybe Schopenhauer said such rude things about women because he was deep in the closet in a time when being gay was highly stigmatized.

>>3610270
So this is why my ex girlfriend suddenly started playing video games after I broke up with her.

Genius

>>3609962

>One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful.

lol he was so virg he jumped ship to team faggot

>>3610276
>criticize the world's perception about women and you're possibly gay

Modern inferences are so gay.

>>3610287
Every single negative physical trait Schops describes as being present in women is the opposite of what men have. It's not a leap to deduce he at least preferred men in an aesthetic sense, if not a sexual one.

>>3610287

>A Schopenhauer fan realises he might be also be closeted
>lashes out in fear and denial

>All these butthurt femnists and liberalfags making ad hominin attacks instead of tackling the validity of the idea itself

The butthurt....is immense.

>>3610293
I find the male body more appealing and men to be better company, yet I'm still only sexually attracted to females.

>>3610071
/thread

Every time this topic is posted there is a variant of the quoted reply posted and yet it is ignored.

To butthurt womyns: most of the things described in schoops essay are very accurate and true with respect to female psychology and behaviour. Deal with it.

To "empowered males": thinking that schoepenhaur is referring to 100% of all women is as deluded as the butthurt feminist point of view. Majority of women are petty and impulsive, but for a woman who can break away from that there is great promise.
Having said that I can think of more evidence for the former than the latter.

>>3610304
Who is that guy, and why do you keep posting pictures of him?

>>3610071
So basically he just likes the women who were on his level and disliked the women below.
it's a tautology
If women are agreeable to him, he likes them. If women aren't agreeable to him, they are unlikable.

The essay is far too emotional to be taken seriously. Big whoop, quit generalising.

>>3610325
I've been wondering this too.

>So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever.

This is so true that my computer just gave me a warning that the truth in what I am copying will paste to freedom.

>>3610331
>emotional
>implying he hasn't made a list of traits that can be logically assessed and verified
I can see how you can criticise his criteria of what makes a woman bad and a man good, but I fail to see how you can dismiss the work as " too emotional".

>>3610334

>>3610279
Unless she's trying to seduce you by playing vidya that's not what he's saying.

>>3610313
>Having said that I can think of more evidence for the former than the latter.
Obviously, considering that you can find women that rely solely on their emotions for judgement to be in the majority.

>Not sure if trolls or just repressed faggots ITT

I dismiss the idea of being around people in general.

>>3610379
Why would you greentext that? You new here?

I was once on a woman. It was nice

>>3610386
This frightened me in more than one way.

>>3610379

>>3610387
/lit/ having the ability to reproduce is a very scary thought

>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex

BASED SCHOPENHAUER XDDDDDDDDD

"With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter."

I wish we could make nature and not be dictated by it..

Have any of you actually met any women who have hobbies? Women that don't just care about parties and their friends and actually dedicate at least some of their time to intellectual pursuits? School doesn't count, by the way.

>>3610436
>actually dedicate at least some of their time to intellectual pursuits?
Well actually ---
>School doesn't count, by the way.
Oh. Well to be fair classes take a fair amount of dedication so a good amount of them just want to unwind and let their hair down when they have the time.

>>3610436
I know a couple chicks who play guitar decently, but I can't vouch for any actual interest in it beyond a vapid desire to be famous or cheered on.

>>3610436
you mean little dilettantes who will announce to anyone who will listen of their "intellectual pursuits"?

>>3609956
while we are at it you guys should read "the manipulated man" from Esther vilar

it is very exagerrated but mostly true

>>3610451
>it is very exagerrated but mostly true
Is it exaggerated or is it true? Maybe if you listened to your emotions less you go form something more coherent.

>>3610471
could*

>>3610436
Yes. Mostly artist.

>If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.

>When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle!

Who said the Germans have no sense of humour?

No idea why people are getting upset about this. He took observations, and made a theory about it. Perfectly fine to refute his ideas, but to disparage and make snide comments about his personal life is not a logical or reasonable response.

>>3610482
Probably some Jew.

>>3610484
hahaha

>dese german, all we do is try and subvert the morals and values of their society and they try and kill us for it! Oy vey,surely they have no sense of humour

>>3610496
The Chosen are slime and you hit the nail on the head with that one.

M-m-muh Woody Allen.

>>3610436
Could being intensely passionate about one's work count as a hobby? If so my old boss definitely qualifies.

>>3610436
My mother reads the shit out of everything wheras my father prides himself with never having read any body of writing longer than a newspaper article

>>3609956
I got a new idea for this thread, why don't we post fictional/ not, women that we are confused whether or not they would fit Schopenhauer's description on women.

I'll start Summer from 500 days of summer

> When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason.

hahahahahah

>>3610436
Is this the result of something innate in them or rather the impact of a society?

I did challenge my female friend the other day to name three female film directors of any merit. She could not. I only really thought of Leni Riefenstahl.

Itt: opinions without evidence labelled as 'true'.

Never change, /lit/.

aw man, reading this makes me think just how ridiculous it is that we think we need to let women in the army just because "we'd be sexist if we didn't."

Can you imagine the Comedy a Roman writer would make of the premise, "a woman in the army"?

>>3610525
Unless you live under a rock and have never met a woman, you should have plenty of evidence.

>>3610525
What exactly do you mean by evidence? Because if one were to use observational evidence the essay above would ring quite true with the evience.

>>3610523
Innate in them. It is the job of a woman to look after the household; rear the children and provide for the man. The man is the one who furthers society; intellectually and physically. A man cannot survive without a woman and the opposite is also true. That's why we have gender roles.

>>3610532
i've basically met women because i've heard a lot of horror stories about them on /pol/

>>3610531
the romans are dead. they died because they didn't allow women in the army

ITT: people projecting their own faults onto women
also, >believing in biological determinism
lol

>>3610684
fag

>>3610334
You probably get used to lying once your period hits.

>>3610531
>Missing the part where Schoppy praises the few women that rise above their own nature

Women in the military is no problemo.

Lowering standards to allow more women to qualify, however...

Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks - Schopenhauer

he hated women because his mom married his dad to fund her pretentious literary shit

also women didnt think he was very attractive, though he did have sex and fell in love.

yeah

>>3611683
So, you are saying philosophy is just a way that a man finds to repress his frustrations?

>>3611696
look buddy. metaphysical reflections based off of anecdotes are almost always a reflection of the person making them.

it's why a lot of feminism is bullshit. it's the reason why i can say schopenhauer said a lot of stuff that isn't true

>>3611698
>based off
>reflection

The starting point of a road is not the road itself. I agree that feminism has already the goal pre-defined and then just forces their theories on it, but you can not compare Schopenhauer to that. The fact that people in 4chan associate him with misogyny does not reduce him to that, buddy.

>>3610684
Ad Hominem

>>3611704
But when you look at his views on women, it really just sounds like a vaguely schopenhauerianization (dat endless neologism) of nineteenth's century traditional view on women. Sounds really like he was caving in to the zeitgeist in this case.

>>3609956

Before reading Schopenhauer, i was thinking women are not inferior to men but different. Now i'm not.

>>3611712
I read Schopenhauer and wound up becoming a female supremacist. Schopenhauer is that bad.

Does he have a point? Is he rigth in some parts at least? I don't have much time for philosophy so I can't just read to find out.

The woman is a primitive beast concerned only with trivial things like sewing and wearing dresses. To her, the grand work of philosophy and man's achievements is nothing more than a silly game.

>>3610436
All the women with intellectual pursuits I've met have had some form of mental illness ranging from self-harm to bipolar disorder.

All of them were sexually confused

>>3611792
But it is a silly game. Philosophy never 'achieved' anything, it is about discussing. Remember how ol' Socrates had fun trolling the Sophists ? Silly game indeed. Unrelentingly funny and worth the time spent, but silly nonetheless.

>>3611804
Interesting. Maybe his views only apply to *straight* women

>>3610471
are you really that stupid? It is true but she keeps exagerrating stuff to bring across her point clearly. Like always saing ALL women are like that, which is obviously not true, but most are.

>>3610436
some who do athletics, mostly track and field and swimming, many dancers, some who do team sports like football(implying they aren't all leasbians), some musicians, mostly piano players.

actually most men I know do nothing but play video games, surf internet and get drunk

>>3611845
>actually most men I know do nothing but play video games, surf internet and get drunk

It's because our society represses masculine instincts so hard that men end up worthless and depressed.

>>3611848
what if women's faults are actually the society's fault?

>>3611848
There's no masculine instinct involved. The only two incontestable masculine instinct are caring for your ass and fucking. If you give a young male an occasion to fap everyday for free and do othing but relaxing there are few chance he will do much more. Why anyone would bother do anything when doing nothing is easy and rewarding ? I'm talking about kids whose parents are affluent enough so that they can afford to do nothing.

>>3611859
>Why anyone would bother do anything when doing nothing is easy and rewarding ? I'm talking about kids whose parents are affluent enough so that they can afford to do nothing.

I don't think you understand human nature at all, men are generally much happier when they have something to do that will allow them to experience some kind of pride, and if you give a man the opportunity to do something he could be proud of over sitting on his all day "doing what he wanted" he'd choose the former every time.

I do fuck all in my daily life and I'm ashamed of it and hate myself. There is no pleasure in sitting around "fapping all day", it's a miserable kind of existence.

>>3611867
take up athletics as a hobby. it helped me. being physically strong validates your manhood somewhat.

except now I've gotten the the point that I don't feel alive except when doing hard physical work or practice. but at least from the hedonist viewpoint my life is nearly perfect. too bad it doesn't pay the bills

>>3611867
Well, pretending to understand "human nature" is pretty pretentious given how messy it gets and how confusing is the actual involvement of nature in the process. I was just pointing out that in all rigor our instincts are very few, very fundamental things (like self-preservation instinct) and have a mixed influence (at best) on our behaviour. Men are probably happier while doing something worthy (hell, it is almost a tautology) but that doesn't mean they will take any occasion to do it. You examplify this yourself: as you say you do nothng all day and feel ashamed, while knowing that actually doing something would make you happier. Why don't you do anything then ? You have internet access and sound rather articulate, so presumably you're not so poor, so stupid or so uneducated. You have the means and the motives to do something. Why don't you ? Because your standard of living provides you shortcuts toward self-sufficiency and easy pleasure. That's almost mechanical, it would actually take quite some willpower to willingly start doing something risky or tiring.

>>3610298
Haha, good one anon :)

>>3610436
I don't know any women who don't do that.

Maybe you just know shitty women?

Holy shit I had no idea Schopenhauer was this retarded.

>One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work.

Dat 19th century logic. Actually, that pays the 19th century a disservice. Schops was just a bitter misogynist.

>tired of r9k BITCHESANDWHORES bullshit
>tired of religion hw threads on sci
>head over to /lit/
>same shit again
You guys are supposed to be the good board.

>>3610331

>If women are agreeable to him, he likes them. If women aren't agreeable to him, they are unlikable.

>yfw this is the fundament of all our judgments and choices and actions ever.

isint it amusing that the only way you can criticise schops, is by criticising life itself.

I hate that our society is so fucking fumbled that even such a simple matter as gender is stretched into a hugely complex problem that needs to be debated about endlessly in every sphere of life.

>>3611934
we don't have anything better to do

>>3611921
>/lit/
>good
lol

The main problem with women is that they're timid, passive, small and weak.

It would be much nicer to live in a matriarchal society with constant threat of being snu-snu'd by some amazon.

Truly, the nature dealt us a shitty hand.

>>3610076
All the great contributors to mankind have been men. 90% of the scientists are dominated by men. All the great philosophers have been men. All the great founders of religions have been men.

>>3611954
but you can be the amazon snu-snuing girls

>>3611963

It's about time women get their shit together and stop freeloading. I say we send them to the labs and us men stay home playing with the kids.

>>3611954
Then they wouldn't need to look pretty. The need to look pretty is to attract mates. If women didn't need to attract mates, then they'd be fucking ugly.

>>3611963
They were all white and east Asian too, but it's racist if you mention this

>>3611977
Indians, Europeans and East Asians to be precise

>>3611969
>implying big can't be pretty

And why attract a mate if you can just hunt one down?

>>3611934
Society is based on the division of labor. And the very first division of labor, the different parental roles, is based on gender. It's misleading to say that the roles were "divided" and "based" on gender, as if it were a historical decision, because this split is found everywhere from the stone-age australian aboriginals to siberian tribes to the khoisan to the eskimos to the inca. And in all their history. And in all our history. It's universal.
There has never been a society in which women behave like men, in any place that humanity has settled. Nobody before our great age, the age of the armchair philosopher, with one hand in a lofty gesture, and the other in a bag of cheetos, would have given this absurd speculation about the possibility of female maleness any credit.
Of course, the degenerating society of the late 19th and early 20th century had to raise the question of the vote. Wives elbowed husbands into voting for it, since they so scorned their own sex that they felt personally offended at the idea of being seen as an average woman. And now degeneracy has grown from that like a snowball rolling down a hill. Women, just over half the vote, have proceeded from one destructive vanity to another. Pervasive and growing welfare. Filling universities and slavishly blackening paper on pedantic topics in the hope of being told what a good girl she is. Eventually lowering academic standards. The heartwarming special olympics and other acts of self-regarding motherliness. Consumerism - the average man will want to indulge in a fast car and a box of useless powertools, but not much more; most gleeful self-indulgence is female. The sexual revolution, that is to say, the killing off of male authority, taken advantage of by a handful of guitarists, eventually resulting in a 50% divorce rate and children (male and female) who grow up feeling rudderless. And indeed, all society is rudderless.

>>3611999

I'm not particularily interested in gender roles. If you can get the job done, go ahead and do it. I don't give a fuck whether you're a man, woman or transsexual.

Why that's such a big fucking deal to both feminists and misogynists is beyond me. Why bother arguing about whether one gender is capable of something or not, when you can just observe the results directly.

Also bell curve and overlap.

>>3612004
I like you; are you me?

>>3612004
The fact is, women won't settle for being treated equally. They take it as an insult. There is no privilege that they won't accept if you offer it, and no privilege they get that they are willing to give up. They do not behave like free citizens. They behave like spoiled brats, like doted-on pets. Even if a woman is perfectly mannerly in daily life, her attitude to the government is that of a spoiled brat.

>>3610216

>>3610287
Shopenhaur was a kantien, making assomption without any basis, rules or thought, making universal rules about woman from everyday and insignifiant experiences. He should have go back to his critic of pure reason.

Modern induction is better ...

I agree almost entirely with Schopenhauer on the subject of women.

>>3610523
>name three female film directors of any merit
there are probably only 5, so this question is impossible to answer if you're not a huge film buff.

>>3610436

My girlfriend likes to knit and reads a lot of history, sci-fi buff.

I know another girl who likes to ski and do art.

Another enjoys pretending she could make it as a fashion guru.

Other then that, the vast majority tend to just go to parties, suck dick and get drunk.

>>3610216

Whenever I hear tomboys and women who don't fit in with other women bitching about other women, it almost always comes up that "90% of what women talk about is men".

I wonder if feminism ever had a chance to make them real people.

>>3610436
I have. But only one that I genuinely like, and we dated for a while. Most have been the feminist artsy tumblr pleb type that I can't stand.

>>3612311
I think that it's the same with most men. What we need is something to push people into a higher state of intellectual existence. It's a shame that most modern feminism is the liberal "don't judge me" kind.

>>3610436
My little sister likes Greek/Roman history, paganism, sheep herding, dog breading, and is teaching herself Latin.

I know several girls who are extremely into sports, including one whom is almost Olympic level and hoping to participate in the Olympics eventually.

Briefly hit it off with a wonderful, but slightly chubby/clingy girl who was majoring in military history.

Also knew a great girl with a slight mustache who did deviant-art drawings of anime and was going to Brown.

It's not the gender, I think that just 90% of people are crap (look at all the guys who just drink and play video games), and as men, we're more exposed to other men.

>>3612371
>dog breading
Are you Korean?

None of her "hobbies" are of any great consequence.
Studying some hipster course does not make that girl an intellectual.
Isn't anime a predominantly male pursuit? How do you know its not a pandering variant of a gamur gorl?

It IS the gender, both men and women are prone to stupidity but women more often than men. I think its because they are inherently more vain and emotional, I know women with STEM degrees who cannot think logically or pragmatically, despite them doing very well academically. Interesting.

>>3612034
It's like I'm really on /r9k/! Seriously why do we get so many stragglers from that fucking place? (Don't act like we all haven't seen feel guy or sad frog here)

>>3612670
>None of her "hobbies" are of any great consequence.
That's kinda the point of hobbies really.

>>3612670
>None of her "hobbies" are of any great consequence.
Most hobbies aren't, you cynical fuck.

>Studying some hipster course does not make that girl an intellectual.
What? So studying stupid courses makes a girl stupid, and studying intelligent ones make them hipsters? It sounds like you're forming your opinions without actually looking at evidence from an impartial view.

>Isn't anime a predominantly male pursuit? How do you know its not a pandering variant of a gamur gorl?
Because there's a difference between liking anime and "gamer girl". Also, anime is a pretty mixed (gender wise) genre. Once again, it sounds like you're taking evidence and changing or interpreting it to support your theory.

>It IS the gender, both men and women are prone to stupidity but women more often than men. I think its because they are inherently more vain and emotional, I know women with STEM degrees who cannot think logically or pragmatically, despite them doing very well academically. Interesting.
The only reason you're getting this is because whenever someone doesn't fit your theory, you ignore it or assume that they're lying. Obviously you aren't very good at thinking logically either

>>3611804
This. All worthwhile women I've ever met were crazy to some degree. Perhaps the smartest girl I've met was a tremendously confused druggy with bandaged wrists who grew up in a cult. Most of the women, even those who take University level philosophy classes, turn into gossipy hens as soon as the class is over. This one chainsmoked and read Batailles in the corner.

She also liked to be sexually dominated by older men around six times a day.

Why is it so hard to accept that there might very well be some general statistically relevant differences between sexes?

Yeah I can also play relativism to absurdity, but come on.

>>3612733
Because any difference makes one feel lesser if one is not a tall, white, blue eyed western european man.

>>3612713
>Most of the women, even those who take University level philosophy classes, turn into gossipy hens as soon as the class is over.
Oh noes, people are social! I found when I took ballet the opposite of this. Everyone was very serious, nobody really talked much after class (at least not as "gossipy hens").

girls are raised to value sociability + appearance above everything else generally

shock horror they talk more and have 'shallow' interests focused upon clothes + makeup

cba to read the thread, most of it will be anecdotal stories that are shaped by a huge amount of prejudice by guys who struggle to get laid

most guys i've known have been just as stupid and uninteresting as girls

>>3612733
Beyond men statistically having cocks, balls and prostates, and women statistically having vulvas, wombs and fallopian tubes, I don't see it. There may be something in men overall being physically stronger than women, but most men are weak as shit, and I've met plenty of women that could take down a guy with ease, so I don't think it's there as much as people like to make out.

>>3612757
I CBA to look for sources, but you can find psychological differences too.

For example, men are more likely to either be mentally challenged or geniuses, while women are generally more average.

IIRC, they've linked this to the level of testosterone in the fetus, which affects the development of the brain.

>>3612773
Here's something on this
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-08-21-female-brain_x.htm

But probably there are better sources..

>re-read it again
>RE-READ IT AGAIN

>>3612780
This is probably better:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18633782

I also recommend watching this, which includes some scientific experiments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

>>3612741
The problem isn't being social, it's the inanity of the conversation matter.

>>3612773
>but you can find psychological differences too.
I have yet to read a decent study that doesn't fall into some form of begging the question with such results. They're inevitably looking to justify the status quo with bad science. See:
http://libgen.info/view.php?id=863488
http://bookfi.org/dl/1027152/431215

>>3612798

99% of guys just talk about girls, sports and getting drunk

perhaps also how cool an action movie was or how sick the drop is on the new skrillex record

>>3612803

differences have also diminished hugely in the past 100 years

adding to those who would assert it's more down to socialisation, expectations etc than anything innate

>>3612804
What was that famous bet Schopenhauer made with himself at the Englicsher hof? Something like he'd finally tip the waiters of put money in the poor box when the men there talked of something other than women, horses or dogs.

>>3612804
But male philosophy students laugh about anecdotes of Wittgenstein's zany tantrums on their smoke break. They seem more dedicated to their interests in general. More obsessive, perhaps.

>>3612803
How about:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18633782
?

Autism is known to affect males more than females, for example.

>>3612798
Trust me. My peers only know of going out, getting high, getting drunk. While that is fun, every weekend is just too much. I only know one of out our group of friends to actually go out and read books.

Humans are polygynous and like every other polygynous species in the world, the males have higher fitness variance than the females. To deny this is pure magical thinking, the evidence is beyond overwhelming.

>>3612733
Of course there's a difference. We also have different skillsets, abilities and deficiencies. For example, women are more empathetic and emotional, this goes well with child care and also supporting the hardened 'males'. Yin and yang like relationship. I hate when feminazis and the male counterpart claim that they are the best and they want equality... there's no equality only differences.

>>3612811
I'd suggest reading through those two suggestions first, you're just posting blind at the moment. As far as autism goes, it's not straightforward to diagnose at all, and like all other diagnoses can be affected by all kinds of biases. See: http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/autism-and-asperger-syndrome-an-introduction/gender-and-autism/women-and-girls-on-the-autism-spectrum.aspx

>>3612697

> and studying intelligent ones make them hipsters?
You really think military history is an intellectual course? Ha.

>The only reason you're getting this is because whenever someone doesn't fit your theory, you ignore it or assume that they're lying.
Even if he was guilty of the above you're the one making assumptions here. Perhaps you're projecting?

Overall, it looks like you've been thoroughly manipulated by these women into ascribing more value to them then they actually have. Truly pathetic.

>>3612829
>Overall, it looks like you've been thoroughly manipulated by these women into ascribing more value to them then they actually have.
Yeah, you gotta be careful with dumb women because they'll outsmart you.

Idiot rationalising idiocy, very amusing.

Whenever I read threads like this I just feel very old

>>3612833
It worked for the christfags for like 1.8k years.

>>3612833
>clearly stated that women are experts at manipulating those with weak minds.
Your lack of reading comprehension is a testament to your stupidity. Perhaps I'm wrong but you sound very much like a woman. You're right about one thing though, this is indeed very amusing.

>>3612859

and you sound like someone with their head up their arse

>>3612859
>you're so stupid, you're probably an icky girl

>>3612869
>>3612871

Excellent rebuttal.

>>3609956

I'm really warming up to the whole Islamic west thing. Give me sharia law and an obedient wife.

>>3610482
He wasn't really the model of a german, he even talked shit about germans.

>>3610176
>If you can't understand what I'm saying, you're fucking retarded.
Fixed.

>>3610482
>>If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something.
Lel, I can just see him smiling wryly while writing that down with his poodle at his feet.

>>3612299
>go to party, sick dick and get drunk

Replace the second by fucking pussies, add reading and you have my dreamlife.

>>3611867
I have fetishised idleness and shameless bohemianism to such a point that I take pride in it. I feel a warm glow when the welfare check arrives. I blatantly exhibit my dolce far niente for all ambitious and working people to see, like Diogenes stretching out his filthy body in the sun while people go about their business. I have revaluated of all values and flipped them back in the right position. No more slave values, only otium now.

>>3610310
Are you me?

>>3610164
Honestly, every female I met that would undisputably fall into the "very intelligent person" bracket, had at least a slight degree of contempt for the majority of her gender, even if they refused to acknowledge it directly.

Majority of feminists are somewhere around 1 standard deviation above the general population in terms of intelligence. Certainly not dumb, but lacking mental capacity of a true intellect.

>>3613676
Misogynist women are best women. Too bad that their social circles often mostly consists of poor fools they friendzoned.

>>3613683
That would be another characteristic of them, yes.

>>3612804

Your post contains more shit than a soiled nappy.