/lit/ - Literature

>>5268028
>citation needed

But anyways, perhaps it has to do with their systematic oppression until relatively recently.

>is it a motivation thing?
See pic

>perhaps it has to do with their systematic oppression until relatively recently.
See pic

>>5268050
>untestable evolutionary psychology

Top Kek mate

>>5268028
Aside from the cultural difficulties that have lightened a little bit in wealthier counties, there's the biological choice
>Do I go to college and be a ____?
>Or do I settle down and have kids?

Which I think might be touched on in >>5268050

>>5268028
Did you not get the memo about women being systemically oppressed? Even after suffrage, marital rape was still legal in the U.S. until the mid-1970s. It wasn't until this generation that women really went into university.

Aside from discouraging writing and virtually all academic pursuits, oppression also silenced the few women who /did/ do these things. They were broadly considered talentless hacks, and were often attacked for having some distasteful "feminine tone".

Last of all, because only men were allowed to do any of this, everything has been defined by them, and so there is an essence of masculinity to academia—including the arts—that also excludes women. How often do you see paintings with male muses? How common are books with female protagonists that /aren't/ labelled "feminist literature"? A book with a female protagonist—one that a woman can better write for—is viewed as inferior, or only for chicks. I can't even think of any good female authors who aren't considered "chick lit" material and/or "feminist". And you wonder why women aren't well-represented.

>is it a motivation thing?

"Taught from infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison."
>Wollstonecraft

"One is not born, but rather becomes a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the female figure plays in society; it is civilisation as a whole that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine."
>Beauvoir

"Woman was an idol of belly-magic. She seemed to swell and give birth by her own law. From the beginning of time, woman has seemed an uncanny being. Man honored but feared her. She was the black maw that had spat him forth and would devour him anew. Men, bonding together, invented culture as a defense against female nature. Sky-cult was the most sophisticated step in this process, for its switch of the creative locus from earth to sky is a shift from belly-magic to head-magic. And from this defensive head-magic has come the spectacular glory of male civilization, which has lifted woman with it. The very language and logic modern woman uses to assail patriarchal culture were the invention of men. ... All the genres of philosophy, science, high art, athletics and politics were invented by men."
>Paglia

"At birth, men and women have the same intellectual potential; there is no primary difference in intelligence between the sexes. It is also a fact that potential left to stagnate will atrophy. Women do not use their mental capacity: they deliberately let it disintegrate. After a few years of sporadic training, they revert to a state of irreversible mental torpor. Why do women not make use of their intellectual potential? For the simple reason that they do not need to. It is not essential for their survival. Theoretically it is possible for a beautiful woman to have less intelligence than a chimpanzee and still be considered an acceptable member of society."
>Vilar

>>5268050
>Genghis Khan had several hundred children

And ... no.
Several years ago, someone determined that 8% of Central Asians seemed to have a common, male ancestor. The newspapers ran with the idea that it was Genghis Khan because that sounded cooler than "Scientists Believes There Was a Male in Central Asia Who Once Had A Lot of Sex and That Is How 8% of All Central Asians Are Here."

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/10/15/why-genghis-khan-wont-have-had-16-million-descendants/

>>5268062
This too.
Evopsych is pseudo-science. I may not be a fan of normal psychiatry, but at least it is forced to produce some kind of results. Evopsych produces no testable hypothesis. It is about as scientific as anthropology.

>>5268037
>perhaps it has to do with their systematic oppression until relatively recently.

nah, that's a tired excuse. Look at Dickens he was oppressed as fuck, his whole family jailed, he was forced into child labor, and then mostly self-taught when he grew up.

Look at Diogenes of Sinope; he was homeless and poor as shit, he founded his own school just by how he lived, and we still talk about him and quote him 2500 years later...

an entire "gender" can't have excuses...thats ridiculous

>>5268028
PATRIARCHY

>>5268112
>And ... no.

'The Ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses II had a large number of children: 96 sons and 60 daughters[1]–whom he had depicted on several monuments.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_children_of_Ramesses_II

..Do you think it's difficult for an emperor-warlord to have hundreds of kids, or something? 'Hundreds' might be hyperbole but the substance is easily true and easy to spot historically.

>Evopsych is pseudo-science.
This meme is cool and all but it's reasonably well-respected within scholarship. There are some loud dissenting voices and no one whatsoever is claiming that we should implement the New Iron Patriarchy of Mansplaining because someone evopsych'ed up a theory about how all women are cunts, but there are major works of evolutionary psychology that are respected, and Baumeister himself is an extremely well-respected and established scholar. Darwin himself did evopsych.

>>5268113

"Males have been found to have on average greater cerebral, cerebellar and cerebral cortical lobar volumes, except possibly left parietal.[27] The gender differences in size vary by more specific brain regions. Studies have tended to indicate that men have a relatively larger amygdalae and hypothalamus" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144937/

>>5268113
Not too mention much more oppressed groups have created much more than women, who have historically had reasonable access to leisure and education in many societies

>>5268113
different kinds of oppression. there is a VAST and incomparable difference in how poor people, people of color, females, immigrants, etc. are treated.

>>5268113
I can't tell if you're being deliberately stupid or not. In case you are:
Diogenes was the son of a banker, and was set for a smooth life until he decided to piss everyone off and become a bum. He was the archetype of the ex-middle-class, fuck-you-dad anarchist.
Dickens received a good education in his early years. His family did decline dramatically, and that is probably what drove his love of the proles.

In Dickens' case, society encouraged (demanded) him to work and make for himself to pay his way through society. If he had been a she, then Charlotte Dickens would have been encouraged to marry to someone who had enough money to cover her debts.

The stupid part in this conversation is the implication that one side was freer than the other (when both were forced into their roles, with the alternative being death), and that one side's accomplishments were more worthy than the other (when the absence of either would have been the end of the human race and civilization right there).

>>5268028
It is very politically correct to say that women have a greater innate capacity for language and verbal expression.

What really goes on biologically is that women are better at using language to wear down and deceive. First when they get emotional, their brains don't give them closure like problem solving does in a testosterone brain. So they just keep talking more and more belligerently. Second, their brains make them better liars, the interconnectivity of an estrogen brain lends more to "creativity" in gossiping and also allows them to believe their own lies. The best liars always deceive them selves first. This is also a part of the consequence agnosia observed in most women.

Why are they not writers? Because patriarchy and gender relations. They just aren't motivated for the sake of experiencing life, which has more to do with contemporary culture than having an estrogen biology. They are encouraged to use language to wear down, manipulate, deceive, and victimize them selves.

>>5268028
>on average
That is your answer

>>5268083
woah now, easy girl, woah

it's ok, shhhh

that's it. that's a good girl, shh. easy now

i've got you. daddy's here now. it's ok

shhhh. that's it. I'm here now. daddy's here

>>5268159
are you going to be ok?

>>5268159
>Not one word of agreement.
>Gluton for punishment.
You ain't nobody's daddy.

>>5268169
t-t-tablefly?

>>5268159
Your patronising shitpost demonstrates my point.

>>5268131
>Do you think it's difficult for an emperor-warlord to have hundreds of kids, or something? 'Hundreds' might be hyperbole but the substance is easily true and easy to spot historically.

That's some super cool armchair psychology, bro. Have you heard about my crystals? They'll blow you're mind.
Or maybe you want to produce something real. Like a study that backs up your results. A study that actually backs up your results, unlike the 8% of all central asian's share a common male ancestor study which, as I already pointed out, doesn't actually prove anything and was a kerfuffle created by irresponsible journalists.

>it's reasonably well-respected within scholarship

If scholarship made something a science, then Kafka would be the greatest science of all and humanities departments would be getting millions of dollars worth of funding to do ... I dunno. Some stupid liberal arts thing.

>>5268180
>That's some super cool armchair psychology, bro.

Citing examples of rulers who have been able to sire hundreds of children, as an example of the possibility of rulers siring hundreds of children, is not 'armchair psychology'.

I didn't actually try to prove the Genghis Khan thing. Only your incredulity that anything even remotely similar is possible.

>>5268150

>hurr the difficulties men faced don't matter and pale in comparison to women who slept at home all day and made babies...

Jesus christ, get over yourself, if a woman wanted to read and write she had all the time imaginable...women have been on vacation for thousands of years until recently when they were forced to enter the job market.

>>5268178
He could of course be just kidding. But what's the difference really?

if men lived in a "matriarchy" they would overthrow it or die tryin', but that's the difference between men and women.

Men look for solutions, for escape and they take responsibility. Women just complain and blame others while taking the easy road.

>>5268212
Fuck off, halfwit.

Women busied themselves with looking good and decorating their bodies for all of history.

Even the rich women who lived lives of leisure and learned some skills like painting, music, horse-riding, poetry never excelled at them...why would they? Women don't feel the need to accomplish things like men do. They feel the need to be pampered and taken care of.

Same reason why promiscuous and degenerate alpha males are also underepresented.

They have better things to do than writing, and even if they do write, no one is interested in their chronicles of their sexual life.

>>5268220
>for all of literature that I've read.
Ftfy

It's almost like I never left r9k

>>5268220
>Even the rich women who lived lives of leisure and learned some skills like painting, music, horse-riding, poetry never excelled at them...why would they? Women don't feel the need to accomplish things like men do

wonder if there's an evolutionary reason for this; hell even the best Chefs are men, and "cooking" is woman's thing

>>5268207
Either way, he'd still be mocking a decent subset of the population for which things like that /aren't/ a joke (if anyone needs proof, look no further than this thread). Why do I have to be treated like a wild beast for writing a reasoned, relevant response to OP?

>>5268205
Good job on proving that men can be just as illiterate as peasant women if they want to.
If you try really hard and go back and have someone read my post to you, you might notice that I was rejecting the idea that women were more oppressed than men. I was saying that the social forces that demand a Charles Dickens learn how to read and whore himself out on the market as an ideologue until he dies are the same social forces that demand a Charlotte Dickens whore herself out to the first husband and be stupid and churn out babies until she dies. They were both crammed into roles against their will, as either expendable provider or protected nurturer.
The "problem" (such as it might be) lies in the evaluations that society forces onto its members with those roles: that somehow the nurturer of the next generation is less worthy than the builders of the next generation's homes. Both are roles that our society needed up to a point, and will probably continue to need until the artificial womb thing gets figured out.

>>5268028
>have a greater (innate) capacity for language and verbal expression compared to men
Really? They're incredibly touchy, in their passive way, and speak carefully because of that. This care mostly consists of insulting openly (with women this category includes telling the truth when it is unflattering,) damning with faint praise, implying insulting things, and avoiding all three. This is hardly a foundation for literature.

>>5268243
>so this is the internet outside tumblr

>>5268243
You are so beautifully ass-pained. Please stick around

>>5268243
Because they're like wild beasts. Not excusing them of course, *some* of them want to learn manners, be "patrician" and all that. They're just still rough around the edges, and may continue to be so for the rest of their lives.

I've compared 4chan to a high school restroom before.

>>5268205

>until recently when they were forced to enter the job market

women weren't forced to enter the job market, they begged to enter the job market. They fought tooth and nail for the right to higher education

you're an idiot who sees history as whatever you imagine happened

>>5268240
There is no evolutionary reason. There's a biological reason—children (as Butterfly pointed out earlier). Women are confronted with the following binary: get your PhD and let your ovaries dry up, or make babies while you can and you can always get educated later. Unless the woman doesn't care to ever have kids and is absolutely sure of that, most women take the latter option (to make babies while they can) simply because it's more flexible. And don't forget the men in their lives—their husbands—encouraging them to have kids. Hell, the husband might even put the relationship on the line and pretty much demand babies. If men got pregnant instead of women, I predict that you'd see the exact opposite trends.

>>5268220
>horse-riding, poetry never excelled at them...why would they?
Oh, and a book for you.

>>5268249
>that the social forces that demand

No such thing, people have a will and exercise it daily. Stop pretending some sort of other-worldly karma is pushing everyone like clock-work.

>. They were both crammed into roles against their will

No they weren't. Charles could've become useless and unknown like nearly all his colleagues and friends. But he persevered and took risks and exposed himself with his writing...

>Both are roles that our society needed up to a point


jesus christ, who brainwashed you? you can't blame society for everything, people have degrees of freedom to act and make decisions...you can't say a rapist or thief are simply the results of society needing them at that time...

>>5268285

of course it is "possible" for women to create art and be intelligent, contrary to all the feminists screaming "muh patriarchy"...

the issue is that they are so few and far between, women in general don't care about excelling at anything....far less then men do anyway.

>>5268028
>why is that women, who on average have a greater (innate) capacity for language and verbal expression compared to men
LMAO who told you that? Hope you enjoy living in your bizarre fantasy wolrd OP.

>>5268300
>LMAO who told you that? Hope you enjoy living in your bizarre fantasy wolrd OP.

It's a common trope, like women being great "cooks" despite the fact that the best Chefs are always men.

>>5268303
You don't know what the word "trope" means but I agree.

>>5268303
>the fact that the best Chefs are always men.
according to other men. who cares about trying to quantify the taste of food anyway? what kind of tryhard shit is that?

>>5268312
I'm sorry you don't care about the finer things in life.

>>5268212
>Women just complain and blame others while taking the easy road.

I didn't know women and blacks had so much in common.

>>5268311

I'm using it metaphorically...get with the times kid.

>>5268254
I browse /lit/ often and never see responses like that to posts like mine. I don't go on tumblr and have witnessed acts of sexism my entire life. I just haven't gotten desensitised enough to be willing to put up with it yet (though admittedly I don't argue with blatant sexists).

>>5268261
Thank you, anon. <3

>>5268271
Guys of this nature have such low confidence that their only ego-boosts come from asserting themselves over their "inferiors" and trying to prove that their biological features are superior to others'. It's all a sad joke, one that (like you said) these guys may never be disillusioned from. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

>>5268291
Why do you think that women don't care at excelling?

>>5268312
>who cares about trying to quantify the taste of food anyway

well, lots of people, since it's a billion dollar industry and restaurants depend on quality Chefs making quality dishes.

>>5268319
You certainly aren't any master of 'trope' yourself

>>5268325
>Why do you think that women don't care at excelling?

historical evidence primarily and personal experience.

It's hard to find competitive women, women who have a craving or obsession to "master" something.

It's usually men that behave like that.

>>5268320
Wow, stop being so serious about a shitpost on the internet.

>>5268320
<3

you are a hero, i just want you to know that

>>5268320
>>5268271

Flailing self-defense is the end result of being a tripfag on 4chan. If you'd drop the ego tag this shit wouldn't happen, but you never will.

>>5268326
health and quality standards is one thing, but the idea that there is best chef is asinine. in the same way that people make it as hollywood actors, chefs that get attention do so based on luck and circumstance more often than not.

>muh oppression

More often than not, women from the higher classes possessed the same education as their male counterparts (Abelard couldn't seduce Eloise otherwise). They just used their talents for court intrigue instead.

Just like nowadays talented feminist writers prefer to scramble over academic positions and work as professional activists than actually write.

>>5268028
will we be reading louise erdrich in 100 years?

>>5268329
What historical evidence? In your personal experience, how many women have you hung out with compared to men, and how many men did you find very driven? As a girl, I've actually known more ambitious girls than men. Should I assert, like you, that men are content to sit around while women are driven to their passions?

>>5268205

>women have been on vacation for thousands of years

Hm, no. Until relatively recently, it was only the very upper reaches of society that provided any kind of leisure time for women. Everyone else had to work, and it has been women who have been the primary producers and laborers throughout most of history.

>>5268320
Don't laugh or cry. Just think bout it. Laughing and crying should be reserved for the things in life that matter, not the s4s

>>5268347
>What historical evidence?

Their under representation in the historical record.

> As a girl, I've actually known more ambitious girls than men. Should I assert, like you, that men are content to sit around while women are driven to their passions?

My experience is the opposite of yours and history backs my experience up.

Also, ambitious women how? They might want some degree of success and put in a bit of work, but that is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about actual mastery where you pour over a subject all day and night and become obsessed with it...

>>5268212
except in every case where this IS in fact a matriarchy, in which case things run just about the same as in male dominant societies.

>>5268028
will we be reading jennifer egan in 200 years?

>>5268338
Women from higher classes still had to make babies though, and still had absolutely no respect or place in the academic community (which was ruled by men).

"Scramble over academic positions"? Are you legitimately criticising women for wanting to get professorships? For being /competitive/? Another poster was criticising women for not being competitive /enough/! Are you people never content?

>>5268374
>except in every case where this IS in fact a matriarchy

what?
name a couple nations/societies in history that were matriarchal?

>>5268303
everybody's grandma is the best chef

>>5268379
>"Scramble over academic positions"? Are you legitimately criticising women for wanting to get professorships?

I think he's saying that whatever talent and opportunity women have now is being squandered on trivial office politics and writing academic rubbish (which is not read by the general public, for good reason).

>>5268380
I don't understand, are you asking me to verify that there are matriarchies?

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

There are too many to list, and "the men rising up and putting a stop to it" is not a common trait of them.

>>5268028
just what exactly is historical about the work of rachel kushner?

>>5268389
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[53][54][55] According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[50] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated.[56] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs,[57] which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.[citation needed] There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals".[3] The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true.[58]

>>5268371
You're not making any points here. You would have to set about proving that we do NOT lead in a patriarchal society in which women have been strongly encouraged to engage in domestic, rather than intellectual, pursuits for nearly all of history in order for your notion that "history backs you up" to hold water.

>>5268334
I think that I would have gotten the same response whether I was a trip or not.

>>5268330
Thank you for affirming my actions. <3

>>5268331
You too. <3

>>5268389

Did you read that article? It specifically says they don't exist:
>According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[50] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated

>>5268398
>You would have to set about proving that we do NOT lead in a patriarchal society in which women have been strongly encouraged to engage in domestic, rather than intellectual, pursuits for nearly all of history in order for your notion that "history backs you up" to hold water.

that you do not lead? what?
can you you say this more clearly, I don't get it

>>5268380
>>5268396

Just like there's never been a "true patriarchy." But there have been quite a few societies where women held critical positions of power and evinced heavy influence in political and social affairs. The Iroquois Confederacy and the West African Kingdoms both before and after European contact come to mind.

>>5268401
>>5268396
I see your confusion. There is no true patriarchal society either, because women would have to hold no power whatsoever for that to be the case.

The article list numerous examples in which women are the primary landowners / controllers of production though.

>>5268113

The only thing 'oppressing' women is their anatomy and innate lack of motivation for higher things.

Women make babies. Men make everything else.

>>5268050
>we may need to legislate the principle of equal pay for less work. Personally, I support that principle.
Why.

>>5268404
I refuse to believe that me typing "lead" instead of "live" prevented you from understanding my post.

>>5268205
I seriously hope that you're not so retarded and ignorant as to think that motherhood/housewifery is as simple as shitting out little humans.

>>5268405
Please provide a source that proves this claim as every single source you've provided so far on the subject has straight up refuted you, and I don't consider your word a reliable source at this point.

>>5268405

No? England also had a Queen ruler, that didn't make English society ever matriarchal in the slightest. Have you actually read that wiki article or any history ever? at all?

>>5268415
Seriously, if you're going to cherry pick the article so can I.

>Tacitus noted in his Germania that in "the nations of the Sitones a woman is the ruling sex.

>The Mosuo culture, which is in China near Tibet, is frequently described as matriarchal

>"the ancient Vietnamese family system was most likely matriarchal, with women ruling over the clan or tribe"

>In India, of communities recognized in the national Constitution as Scheduled Tribes, "some ... [are] matriarchal and matrilineal"[78] "and thus have been known to be more egalitarian."[79] According to interviewer Anuj Kumar, Manipur, India, "has a matriarchal society"

This goes on for pages.

>>5268415
>>5268417

I'm not the one citing Wikipedia.

This is fairly common knowledge stuff, but I can try and dig up all my research on the Asante, if you'd like.

The work of Mary Douglas is critical for understanding the historical situation in Africa. Eric Wolff has some good survey stuff, and he provides extensive bibliographical notes. Marvin Harris as well.

I can't really link you to a site or anything, these are actually books you need to go out and, you know, read. All three are also on JSTOR, and any other article database.

>>5268366
It's not just shit 4chan says, it's shit so many other people say, and it pisses me off. That being said, laughing and crying were just used to symbolically refer to condescension and pity; I haven't been prompted to literal laughter or tears, and never will over this issue on the Internet. Thank you for being supportive though, or at least not antagonistic.

>>5268426
>Tacitus noted in his Germania that in "the nations of the Sitones a woman is the ruling sex.

What study did he do? In what way were they ruling? What roles did they do? How did each contribute? Etc...

>This goes on for pages.

none of them are studies, more like hearsay and vague musings...do any of them go into detail and offer evidence?

>>5268379
keep going im almost there

>>5268417

Also, neither the Iroquois Confederacy nor the West African Kingdoms were really remotely similar to England, so your analogy kind of falls apart. These aren't single-female=sovereign situations. These are women-own-most-of-the-productive-property-and-have-control-over-the access-to-weapons situations.

>>5268371
>I'm talking about actual mastery where you pour over a subject all day and night and become obsessed with it...
I have only ever met women that meet this description. One is a girl who is captivated by math and spends all her waking hours reading advanced math textbooks. The other two are a writer and a fashion designer.

As for my other criticisms, see >>5268398.

>>5268426
"A man wrote it once" is not really a good analysis. Plenty of men today write that women run everything. Is that true?

>>5268444
>These are women-own-most-of-the-productive-property-and-have-control-over-the access-to-weapons situations.

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[53][54][55] According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[50] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated.[56] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs,[57] which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.[citation needed] There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals".[3] The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true.[58]

>>5268436
>In what way were they ruling?
In general: by being the primary landowners, by controlling the means of production, of distribution, by being the primary holders of political office. I promise if you are interested in the subject matter, and look for whatever formal studies in whatever scholarly journals you care to, you will find that such societies do exist and are not just "hearsay and vague musings".

Note that none of these make a society "unambiguously matriarchal", they are simply examples where a society was however many degrees more matriarchal than patriarchal.

>>5268404
S/he is saying that your argument is useless if women have been oppressed for all of history and continue to be thought of as "un-academic", because then your argument (that women are innately unambitious) would be wrong.

Why are you morons arguing with a woman?
In her mind, she has been insulted. She will keep denying what she perceives to be an insult. The actual facts and logical processes involved are completely irrelevant.
Since this is a purely textual argument, there can be no end to this. She will keep dashing after the last word.

>>5268399
If you weren't a trip you wouldn't be as emotionally involved in this bullshit and could disappear from this thread when it dies, reappear in the next and have a genial conversation. But you can't because every time you lose your shit like this people will remember you in the next thread and go straight for you. And you fucking love it, and it's why you do this. And I irrationally hate you with the rage of a mall shooter for it.

>>5268433
I've read Evans-Pritchard. The Asante didn't have a matriachical society. You're just straight up making things up.

Also, I've read Marvin Harris and he's a straight up hack. His work on the supposed benefits of keeping cows alive in India is the most ridiculous shamefully baseless anthropology I've ever had the misfortune of reading.

You're full of shit.

>>5268455
>unambiguously matriarchal
>true matriarchy

You understand that these are stringent definitions right?

>>5268468
I never remember trips.

>>5268450
>I have only ever met women that meet this description

I've only ever met men who have and the number of "masters" in each field today supports my experience not yours. Go look at the leading authorities of any field, it's going to be men.

Plus we have history, and history is on our side. Come back in a few thousand years when we have a female Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Einstein, Beethoven, Napoleon, Plato, Goethe, Picasso, etc.

>>5268461
>because then your argument (that women are innately unambitious) would be wrong.


I never said they were innately unambitious.

>>5268455

Again, I am not the one citing Wikipedia, so I am not endorsing that article. I disagree with the passage you are quoting. "Most anthropologists" actually take for granted the facts of the Iroquois Confederacy and the West African Kingdoms. They might take issue with the label "matriarchy"--and that's understandable, as I do, too--but that doesn't change history.

>>5268472
I do, and I've been spending more time here than in the past. Really need to get an add-on or something that filters them, it would improve my life after midnight.

>>5268473
>we have history, and history is on our side
Again, unless you can demonstrate that society has not been mostly patriarchal, and can make a plausible case that women have not been strongly encouraged to avoid becoming Shakespeares and Rembrandts, this is a bullshit claim.

>>5268479
>Iroquois Confederacy and the West African Kingdoms

What year was this?

what great art, science or philosophy did women create in those marvelous societies? Who was their Socrates or Pythagoras? They were at least at the level of the greeks ya?

>>5268469

I've read Evans, too. I was referring the the early period, when the region was dominated by an assortment of matrilineal tribes in loose alliance.

I don't agree with everything Harris wrote, and I have deep reservations about his strong material determinism, but his "Our Kind" is still a great piece of popular anthropology, and is a good survey work for anyone wanting to familiarize themselves with this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juana_In%C3%A9s_de_la_Cruz


>In response to critics of her writing, Juana wrote a letter, Respuesta a Sor Filotea (Reply to Sister Philotea), in which she defended women's right to education. In response, the Archbishop of Mexico joined other high-ranking officials in condemning Sor Juana's "waywardness". By 1693, Sor Juana seemingly ceased writing rather than risk official censure.

Do you understand the relevance?

>>5268469

And, if you'd notice, I was pointing more towards the source material of Harris and Wolf then to the men themselves.

>>5268028
>women, who on average have a greater (innate) capacity for language and verbal expression compared to men
>[fart noises intensify]

>>5268487
>unless you can demonstrate that society has not been mostly patriarchal

Who made society patriarchal? Who acquiesced? You think God or Biology just gave it to man like that?

Wait...are you saying that men innately will rule societies and women will innately be subjugated?

Or are you saying men sculpted that sort of society on purpose and women simply blushed and allowed it? Either way how is this an excuse for female incompetence? In fact it's an expression of it (whether it is innate or constructed).

>>5268496
And the Respuesta is still studied in college lit courses to this day because of it's rhetorical prowess.

>>5268473

Holy shit it's so sad. The most famous female composer could be Clara Schumann and she's only famous because she's Robert's husband. She was a good pianist but never created a masterpiece of worth.

Actually, what masterpiece in any medium has a woman ever created? This is a serious question, I really would like to know.

>>5268489

:^)

>>5268494
Where is this literature on the "early period"?

And I'm all set with reading any more Harris. I'm familiar enough with him.

>>5268506
>Actually, what masterpiece in any medium has a woman ever created?

They allowed patriarchy to happen.

>>5268503
>be male
>be stronger than female
>use strength to rule female
>female try to write book
>"fuck you get back in the kitchen"

Might makes right, you are saying? Physical strength made society patriarchal, it has nothing to do with intellect or drive.

>>5268139
Your right, white, heterosexual females are privileged compared to the other groups that you mentioned.

>>5268464
Keep attributing my frustration over rampant prejudice to my sex.

>>5268468
Me being a trip doesn't factor into this at all. Am I losing my shit, anon? I'm so new that I have never been targeted in such a way, but you're right; I do love how angry people can get at me simply having a name. Come at me in the next thread if you'd like, but honestly, I don't think anyone will care or bother.

>>5268473
I am not going to argue with you anymore, anon. I'll be on my way.

>>5268478
Are you different from the above anon, or not? If so, then like I said, I'm not going to argue you anymore.

>>5268150
what's this? A good post, on my /lit/? But seriously, there seem to be a few non-retards in this thread, keep up the good work!

>>5268520
>Physical strength made society patriarchal, it has nothing to do with intellect or drive.

strength is superior to intellect. without strength you can't even exercise intellect or drive, look at what happened to women.

people discount strength for some reason, it's still #1 and will always be #1.

>>5268503
The basis of patriarchy is purely biological. As retarded as a lot of evolutionary biology is, there's still some truth to the basics of it - women have breasts for feeding their babies, men are strong to hunt, etc. Their roles in society were natural extensions of this. The problem being in that today's societies, biology is no longer a real limiting factor in most things - yet we still retain the social roles.

>>5268532

>good post
>anon blames society for everything
>pretends life is pure determinism and no one ever has any choices or will power

kek, is this what passes off as "good"? feminist apologetics are really insane.

>>5268520
Thank you. <3 I don't think this anon is convincible, but still I admire your perseverance.

>>5268536
>without strength you can't even exercise intellect or drive, look at what happened to women.
That's all we've been arguing. Women were not given the opportunity to exercise intellect or drive.

This is the answer to OP's question about why history favors males as far as Great Works.

>>5268514

Then search out Mary Douglas and Eric Wolf. Both are great, though Douglas is the African expert.

McCaskie's the authority on the pre- and early Asante period. Kwame Arhin is another good source, though his focus is more on Asante proper, and later period stuff. Sara Berry's another one to look into.

Seriously, just raid JSTOR.

Have you read Cultural Materialism? It's, uh, stimulating, to say the least.

>>5268275
>they begged to enter the job market
That must be their eternal drive for self-subjugation, I guess?

>>5268541
>This is the answer to OP's question about why history favors males as far as Great Works.

Well strength is innate and women will always be weaker, and thus less exceptional.

>>5268152
This guy gets it.

>>5268538
>women have breasts for feeding their babies, men are strong to hunt, etc.
Oversimplification. What you say is true, but in hunter gatherer societies women were usually slightly more powerful than men in the social structure. The men were essentially a working class that went out and did the hunting, while women organized and ran shit. But they basically just hung out and didn't have to do shit, either men or women, it's a very laid back lifestyle.

Then agriculture comes along and BOOM it's backbreaking work and women are doing the grueling 12 hour farming shifts while the men go out and make war (because suddenly territory is a big problem).

It's men's propensity for being warlike, not their aptitude for hunting, that brings about the patriarchy. Do some research and you'll find that I'm giving you true information.

>>5268545
> must be their eternal drive for self-subjugation

tip top lol

>>5268549
The more we move away from valuing brute strength, the more female intellectuals emerge. You think it's a coincidence the last century has like 90% of them?

>>5268555
>in hunter gatherer societies women were usually slightly more powerful than men in the social structure

no they weren't "more powerful" they just had "more chores"

there was always some elder shaman/chief running shit, and the men could boss the women around like they ought to.

>>5268566
They had less chores. Men did most of the work with the hunting and the gathering.

They had very little in the way of ruling structures. Shamans and chiefs come into play more in early agriculture.

I don't think you really know what you're talking about, or it's been too long since you took anthro.

>>5268539
>>anon blames society for everything
>>pretends life is pure determinism and no one ever has any choices or will power

You are a fucking retard. The post I quoted claims neither of these things. Not even a little bit. You are apparently barely able to keep track of what your own claim was, and ascribe the opposite position to anyone disagreeing with you. You started out with two bad examples supposedly illustrating how being oppressed cannot be the cause of a group of people being less strongly represented in art. Notice how that idea was already retarded because two individual lives prove nothing about phenomena concerning billions of lives.

The other anon demonstrated (beyond the technical problem I outlined above) how even your cherry-picked examples themselves are completely horrible and don't support your point. The last point made is one about societal constraints, but a far cry from 'pure determinism'. There isn't anything specifically feminist in the post (not even broadly feminist, if we are being precise), and nothing about it is 'apologetic', because there is no position that is argued in favor of. It's just your retarded confabulations being intellectually curbstomped, you mouthbreather.

>>5268564
>You think it's a coincidence the last century has like 90% of them?

The funny thing is that 100% of them are still unremarkable. Go figure.

>>5268543
>Have you read Cultural Materialism? It's, uh, stimulating, to say the least.

by whom? Just butting in here, I don't have any knowledge about the African anthropology angle, but I do have some opinions about the hugely problematic label 'materialism', especially in connection to cultural analysis.

>>5268573
You seriously don't have any female writers that you like? Atwood?

>>5268555
Oh man, you know when a person posts a one-word sentence that they feel sums up the error in their adversaries argument, you're going to read something really good.

>>5268570
>They had less chores. Men did most of the work with the hunting and the gathering.

Women had a higher variety of chores. Men had far fewer and more specialized chores.

>They had very little in the way of ruling structures. Shamans and chiefs come into play more in early agriculture.

I'm talking about last 5000 years, not 200,000...
They've had ruling structures in the last 5000 years, probably last 10,000.

>>5268529
>Me being a trip doesn't factor into this at all.
this statement would be false in all possible contexts on 4chan.

>>5268580
I never said they were my adversary or that the phrase I quoted summed up their argument.

>middle classed white people debate who is the most downtrodden group

You're all faggots

>>5268589
That's not what this thread is about at all.

>>5268586
Yeah okay, but I would stay away from one-word sentences.

>>5268555
>Oversimplification.
>they basically just hung out and didn't have to do shit
>agriculture comes along and BOOM it's backbreaking work and women are doing the grueling 12 hour farming shifts
Oh, the ironing.

>>5268578
>You seriously don't have any female writers that you like? Atwood?

I like atwood, despite her being unremarkable and mediocre.

But it's not just fiction, look at science, jurisprudence, poetry, engineering, painters, composers, philosophers (women are still hilariously terrible at philosophy).

I don't see any "remarkable" women who have created "masterpieces" in any field yet.

>>5268592
It wasn't supposed to be this way.

>>5268593
I would not post using a trip on an anonymous website.

>>5268575

That's Harris again. It's a critique of some prominent anthropological frameworks, and an outline of his own.

>>5268584
I obviously meant that me getting frustrated over and responding to bigotry would have happened regardless of whether I had a tripcode or not, anon.

>>5268589
Lol nah, I'm reading a book and taking breaks to see a few threads.

I really just don't care about the topic, but I find the debate mechanics themselves interesting, so I stick around

I love women, they are great and I enjoy having them around. Why do some people have to get so blasted about what they do? I dunno

>>5268593
the sad part is that the post you criticized was flawed, but not in the way you think. Summarizing a four-sentence post in a one-sentence quote is competely okay, both in principle (if you choose the correct sentence) and in this case. The real flaw is this:>>5268596

>>5268600
Yeah, I suppose you're right that people operate differently. However, using a tripcode is a device that produces great fun for me.

>>5268607
I didn't even really read it, I was just commenting on people who type one-word sentences in this sort of a debate structure. Bonus points if they're naming a fallacy.

Strawman! Ad hominem!

>>5268379
He's completely wrong in how he worded it (as women spend less time competing in the work place), but if you look at most universities women do spend a far larger amount of time dedicated to non-research work (e.g. admin and teaching). Part of this is cultural, in that women are more likely to be asked to do such things. Part of this also comes from women's disposition to please and not tell their employers to fuck off (in lighter phrasing of course).

Most of that's minor however compared to the number of hours each work. Women take off far more time to look after their families. And, in a system based on equity, if you work less, you earn less. If however you get rid of that disparity almost the entirety of the inequality disappears, so women who don't look after their kids or don't have kids earn 'man wages,' and men who take time off to look after their kids earn 'female wages.'

People can talk societal pressure or whatever, but the research paints the answer really simply. If you want to earn what a man earns, you need to do what a man does. That is be willing to get more confrontational. Be willing to move jobs at the drop of a hat and invest in higher risk ventures. Be willing to not have kids or, if you must, be willing to have kids with someone who earns less than you (or doesn't work) and who will look after them in your stead. I think if you really question people, there are few women who will do these things, who would for example be genuinely content with marrying someone financially subordinate to themselves. If you are however fine with that, or you already are, then the 70% to the dollar statistic doesn't apply to you.

>>5268589
Almost nobody on this thread was arguing about this. They were attributing the alleged historical inferiority of women to systemic oppression.

>>5268596
Summary =/= oversimplification.

The advent of agriculture indeed WAS the advent of hard labor and 50 hour work weeks. Agriculturalists work harder than hunter-gatherers and the females did most of the work. This is accurate information.

Hunter gatherers worked something like 12 hours a week on average. By comparison it's an extremely care free lifestyle.

>>5268573
>>5268578
Don't bother with him, he's trying to blame women for his lack of character. There is absolutely no point in trying to argue with this person,

>>5268605
>I love women, they are great and I enjoy having them around. Why do some people have to get so blasted about what they do?

I agree, funnily enough Sanderson answers this question in WOR.

>>5268615
>Part of this also comes from women's disposition to please and not tell their employers to fuck off
Yes, I've experienced this first-hand. Women tend to be timid and less demanding. I have a hard time imaging this being a cultural initiative myself. In any case, myself and my male coworkers are almost always pressuring management to improve working conditions and we negotiate wages regularly. Men seem to have an easier time not feeling threatened in that environment. Many of the women at my workplace are more submissive.

>>5268621
>he's trying to blame women for his lack of character.

no he's blaming women for their lack of excellence.

>>5268271

oh god butterflap why don't you just fuck off already? If you're too cool for this "high school restroom" why don't you leave? No one wants tripfags on /lit/ and you are definitely one of the most annoying tripfags I've seen since 2011. GTFO

>>5268543
I've read Douglas before. I think it was stuff on structural mythology though. I'm not familiar with Wolf.

I'm not finding much on McCaskie other than a couple of book reviews for his State and Society in PreColonial Asande. Is he an archaeologist? What is his methodology?

The only cultural materialism outside I'm really familiar with is marxist analysis and the ecological stuff of Harris and his ilk. Marxist analysis is fun, but too reductionist in most cases. Unless you mean archaeology.

Women hold up pretty well in photography. Arbus and Lange are easily as respected as of the male heavyweights.

>>5268623
Summarize it for me; what's his answer?

>>5268623
>>5268605
>>I love women, they are great and I enjoy having them around. Why do some people have to get so blasted about what they do?

I love women too, but I don't see the need to give them praise when they don't deserve it.

I don't need women to be "intellectually equal" to men, why would I? They aren't, and that isn't even a problem. Our society is overvaluing intelligence, just like it overvalued strength in the past.

Women have great qualities like warm smiles, empathy, breasts and soft, supple skin due to estrogen, they can bear children, etc.

This constant need to equalize gender, every race, every nation, is retarded. Enjoy the differences, life is short.

>>5268627
>tfw you Anonymize Everyone and have no idea who is a trip and who isn't

but i always wonder

>>5268614
>I didn't even really read it, I was just commenting on people who type one-word sentences in this sort of a debate structure. Bonus points if they're naming a fallacy.

so...

a) You are criticizing the basic way of posting/arguing
b) Your criticism holds no water, which observation on my part you choose not to comment on
c) You criticize especially the use of rebuttals focussing on general features of argumentative structure (you mention fallacies, the rebuttal-type-category in question is 'oversimplification')
d) You didn't even read the post.

The problems here are that c) applies also to exactly what you did yourself in a), and furthermore even if it didn't, d) would be a far stronger violation of any standards for discussion that what you blame the other anon for in c), so... I think you lose this round.

>>5268627

>oh god butterflap why don't you just fuck off already? If you're too cool for this "high school restroom" why don't you leave?

She's a mopey hausfrau who gets fawned on and lavished with attention every time she posts here.

Do you really think any lonely woman could easily give that up?

Let her think she's above it.
It's obviously a coping mechanism for her.

>>5268625
Based on ''personal experience'' and ''hisorical evidence''
read >>5268371 to see he hasn't actually answered the most important question in >>5268347, which was:
>how many women have you hung out with compared to men, and how many men did you find very driven?

He's just another one of those ''wymyn suckz!'' kind of people, who for some reason think men are amazing and women are shit, when really, majorities of both genders are unaspiring fat tubs of lard. Hell, look at obesity numbers and see men are just as worthless as women.

There is no point in trying to argue with a predetermined, subjectively infallible, and unchanging prejudice.

>>5268028
for the same reason they are better liars, they have an increased amount of white matter in their frontal lobe than men.

>>5268648
>shitty infographic

go die in a fiery death.

>>5268555
Yes, it was a pretty huge oversimplification. I'm not too educated when it comes to anthropology but I don't really doubt the rest of your post - I think it reinforces the central point I was trying to make.

>>5268620
>The advent of agriculture indeed WAS the advent of hard labor and 50 hour work weeks. Agriculturalists work harder than hunter-gatherers and the females did most of the work. This is accurate information.
>Hunter gatherers worked something like 12 hours a week on average. By comparison it's an extremely care free lifestyle.

That's hyperbolic. While the impetus is correct, the point is overstated and the amount of leisure-time in preagrarian societies is calculated by questionable means and sometimes fraught with possible political motivations.

>>5268635
It's in chapter 65 of Words of Radiance 'The One Who Deserves It'.

I can summarize it if you want.

>>5268655
shutup faget

>be white and male
>only read stuff written by other white males
>don't admit people to university who aren't white and male
>then look at all the books you wrote and be like "wtf all other races and genders, why haven't you written any of these books that i wrote?"

do you also pick yourself up by your shoelaces and fly into the air?

>>5268653
fuck you, it gets the point across.

>>5268655
>calculated by questionable means

Sure, if "living with them and filming everything they do for years" is questionable.

You know they STILL EXIST right?

>>5268646

women have had thousands of years to do something of merit and they haven't.

No point blowing smoke up their ass and giving them adulations for being mediocre in everything they do.

>>5268619
Keep telling yourself that, honey.
You aren't the paragon of womanhood, strong woman don't spew the bullshit you have been.

>>5268668
I'm not talking about the observations, but about what you regard as 'work' and what you regard as 'leisure'. Because I haven't studied anthropology, I will throw some wikipedia at you, feel free to tell me what's wrong with it (only partly sarcastic, I'm aware there's a good chance of mistakes, and I actually would like to know what they are):

Sahlins' argument partly relies on studies undertaken by McCarthy and McArthur in Arnhem Land, and by Richard Lee among the !Kung. These studies show that hunter-gatherers need only work about fifteen to twenty hours a week in order to survive and may devote the rest of their time to leisure.[3] Lee did not include food preparation time in his study, arguing that "work" should be defined as the time spent gathering enough food for sustenance.[4] When total time spent on food acquisition, processing, and cooking was added together, the estimate per week was 44.5 hours for men and 40.1 hours for women, but Lee added that this is still less than the total hours spent on work and housework in many modern Western households.[4]

>>5268654
The central point was that the basis for the patriarchy is biological, and indeed I agree.

The point I wanted to make was
>It's men's propensity for being warlike, not their aptitude for hunting
that makes them emerge as the dominant gender.

>>5268630

McCaskie's an historian. Bit of an archivist, actually. Has a People's History streak in him, but other than that I couldn't peg him with any specific methodology. He might have an essay or two out on the subject, but I haven't come across anything.

Wolf uses the whole "mode of production" apparatus, but he's very careful with it, unlike Harris. I would recommend Europe and the People Without History from him. It is excellent.

>>5268681
>It's men's propensity for being warlike, not their aptitude for hunting

Alright. I think these could be pretty related, though.

>>5268680
That seems legitimate to me. I don't recall the material I studied substantiating the figures to that extent.

I get where Lee is coming from though. In the American 40 hour full time work week, that's the time spent "gathering food for sustenance" (earning money). Meanwhile how much time is spent commuting, shopping, cooking etc.

>>5268636
>I love women too, but I don't see the need to give them praise when they don't deserve it.
I don't either. Do you see me in this thread arguing that women have done comparable works in art and literature?

The question of why is still undecided to me. I find the problem utterly complex, and my views on ethics are too underdeveloped for me to say whether any direction we are going is the correct one. I find both views (oppression, innate) express some very cogent views.

>I don't need women to be "intellectually equal" to men, why would I? They aren't, and that isn't even a problem. Our society is overvaluing intelligence, just like it overvalued strength in the past.

Well, there is a deep problem here that I find troubling. What if it is truly the case that men and women diverge in intellect as a general rule? What if some sort of deductions could be made in this regard that are accurate?

Many people now say that thinking "emotionally" is not as good as thinking "rationally". What if it is the case that, by some interpretation, it really is true that women are more "emotional" in their thinking then men? It would imply that to be not misogynistic, we would have to change the original view, that thinking emotionally or thinking rationally are not hierarchical. This is closer to where I am now than to believe the converse is true; I cannot say whether women and men diverge due to innateness or culture, but the fact is they have already diverged, so operating in this world benefits from recognizing that divergence. So the process of being less misogynist for me isn't saying "women aren't emotional", it's to say "being emotional isn't bad". Which whatever, some people may criticize me for that but I don't really care.

>Women have great qualities like warm smiles, empathy, breasts and soft, supple skin due to estrogen, they can bear children, etc.

Yeah

>This constant need to equalize gender, every race, every nation, is retarded. Enjoy the differences, life is short.

Yeah, the ethical compulsion towards equality produces some ham-fisted errors. Really, what is equality? How is equality measured? When you look deeply into the issue, you realize that much of it is derived from statistical data. But, how could we take every quantifiable feature of a human and make them equal? How do we determine exactly the causal effects that make some people succeed?

In the end, we don't really know. There's a presumption of knowledge in the ethics of equality that of which we should be appropriately skeptical.

And then, why is it the case that the ethics of equality are most important? I see the same problem in all ethics; what foundation is there for any view? There's a fundamental gap between ethics and knowledge that I don't think can be bridged, and thus ethics becomes much harder to discuss

I would look up Zizek talk on multiculturalism if you want to listen to a view I find influential and important for future development.

>>5268641
What are you talking about? I didn't call oversimplification a fallacy, I just said it's worse when it is a fallacy. I do not agree, either, that I'm "criticizing the basic way of posting/arguing". Stating fallacious reasoning may be a part of some debates; I don't mind such. I was commenting on the stilted nature of stating a concept by itself, instead of as a sentence.

>>5268688
But neither hunting nor warmaking are evidence that men should also be in charge of art, academia, philosophy, and EVERYTHING else. Isn't there a chance that the dominate all other fields just because power tends to breed more power?

>>5268658
Yeah, I'll check it out, thanks

>>5268696
christ. filter this cunt.

>>5268701
Yes, we are in complete agreement.

>>5268640

idk why I don't filter. . .I guess I'm masochistic but I just have to know

>>5268642

I need a coping method for dealing with her. It's how she's so condescending and tries to act like "the board representative" There used to be this rumour (fact?) that she was a janitor and I bet she deleted some of my girly pictures.

>wahh my patriarchy
>men didn't encourage us and support us enough

get on my level newbs, stop making excuses.

>>5268722

I bet if women didn't have arms they would complain about that as well, jesus christ

>>5268696
>I would look up Zizek talk on multiculturalism if you want to listen to a view I find influential and important for future development.
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha and so on and so on

>>5268615
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c

On pages 70 and 71 it reveals that, all other variables accounted for, women still make 95% of what men make right out of college, and only 88% of what men make ten years out of college. Again, all variables considered, so these women are working just like "men" and still not getting credit for it.

While women are, mathematically speaking, the victims in this situation, I do think that part of the gap could be attributed to the idea that men need to be the breadwinners, and so they get more raises. Sexism is a double-edged sword.

>>5268722
It's not that they weren't encouraged or supported, it's that they were STRONGLY discouraged, threatened, burned at the stake, etc.

i don't understand how men who never have written anything in their lives can complain that women writers are mediocre

>>5268727
you are an idiot please read more

>>5268687
McCaskie seems pretty legit from what I can gather, though I'd imagine his source material probably relies too heavily on European missionaries and shit. I also can't seem to find anything that suggests he's describing a matriachical society. He seems to be structuring their society around the same "big man" concept that is found in many tribal societies, and around belief, which isn't any different from what Evans-Pritchard did, just looking at history rather than practice. Either way, no mention of anything suggesting matriarchy. Looks interesting nonetheless.

>>5268700
hm... as it turns out, I did mistake your initial comment for 'only quoting one sentence from a post'... I believe my general criticism still holds, but I concede that my argumentative standing is somewhat blemished by my inability to parse basic English sentences (ESL + too much coffee is my excuse for the moment).

>>5268722
>>5268726

>arms chopped off at 4years old
>taught himself how to paint at 12...by himself!
>father got super-sick
>he dropped out of school at 16
>started selling his pictures on the street to get money for his father's medicine


now compare this with the excuses women make every day...it's nauseating.

>>5268730

>burned at the steak for getting good at painting or writing or science

that's a lie and you know it. They were burned for being witches/heretics/blasphemers and men were too.

Women are stupid and unmotivated

>muh systemic oppression, j-just give them a chance to make masterpieces

Not being weak enough to get oppressed is part of being intelligent and motivated.

>>5268737
you get how this isn't relevant to anything right?

>>5268720
>There used to be this rumour (fact?) that she was a janitor and I bet she deleted some of my girly pictures.

There have been many people over the years who adopted the butterfly name. The hardcore feminist atheist girl who was her for nearly a year announced that she was applying to be the board janitor when Moot did that mass application thing. Previously she had been posting about 25 times a day, yet the same day that the new janitor was instated she stopped posting. A new butterfly appeared months later, and now we have this one, who appears to be the same girl, but she has dropped the feminist atheist stance. Maybe she stopped being janitor and was allowed to post with a name again, or maybe she's another person. When butterfly was first janitor she flagged every /pol/ or anti-women thread.

>>5268703
Don't bother unless you have an interest in fantasy, the passage I'm referencing is miniscule compared to the rest of the book.

>>5268732
>you are an idiot please read more
nice try retard, but I did read Zizek and not only does he combine the least intellectually rigorous and trustworthy thinkers available on the Left spectrum, but the entire MO of his more theoretical points (as opposed to his illustrative examples and jokes) consists in stating some very vague parallels between A and B in order to support a mostly implied important connection between A and B, completely leaving aside something like an actual argumentation, a mechanism for how this connection can be explained, etc. Examples of this inlude 'Marx' value form and Freud's structure of dreams', 'Zeno's paradoxes according to Hegel and psychoanalytical concepts' and probably some other ones I cannot remember right now (mostly due to the fact that I try to stop reading thinkers who are obviously hacks after I have given them a third chance).

>>5268742
most fedora post itt so far

>>5268741
>for being witches

Witches aren't real anon.

>heretics/blasphemers
Being able to read as a woman / arguing that women should be allowed to be educated WAS CONSIDERED HERESY.

I mean the point is that women were not allowed to go to school until the last like hundred years!

>>5268753
>consists in stating some very vague parallels between A and B in order to support a mostly implied important connection between A and B

This is part of what I enjoy about Zizek - his ability to make these connections. I don't take any of it seriously, of course, but it's rather entertaining and I think he's a pretty brilliant writer.

>>5268745
I'm pretty sure that the current Butterfly is also a feminist and an atheist.

>>5268755
>fedora

That post had nothing to do with atheism, neckbeard virgin is an apt response, however.

>>5268744

>us females have no good artists because school limitations, encouragement, family support, money

>but many men were self-taught, also were discouraged by their families, poor, broke, some didn't even have families and were orphans...some didn't even have arms...

women and their stupid excuses.

>>5268753
you just made fun of his speech pattern and made it sound like you are an idiot from /pol/ that thinks that zizek because he's leftist he is in favor of multiculturalism (though in that i disagree with him)
also just because he draws parallels his work is not discredited

>>5268692
>I get where Lee is coming from though. In the American 40 hour full time work week, that's the time spent "gathering food for sustenance" (earning money). Meanwhile how much time is spent commuting, shopping, cooking etc.

That's the entire problem, I think even trying to compare directly 'work and leisure' in contemporary American society and preagrarian (notice how the prefix is somewhat patronizing in its assumption of 'progress' towards how we live as opposed to everyone else) societies is very problematic. One would have to consider both how this division appears to us (and probably more in the difference between pre and early agrarian societies, not between preagrarian and ourselves, that's just an invitation for bullshit projection), but also appears to the people living in these societies.

>>5268758
>Being able to read as a woman / arguing that women should be allowed to be educated WAS CONSIDERED HERESY.

false. false. false
there were female writers, thinkers, poets, painters, throughout all of history. they were just mediocre most of the time.

The need for "encouragement" and "school" is bullshit, many men never got any of those things and still created masterpieces because they can look inside themselves for the drive and desire.

>>5268770
>>5268755

There is no bias required to arrive at this inescapable conclusion. If women were equal or superior, they wouldn't have been weak enough to become second class citizens (ultimately for their OWN GOOD, just like the blacks/browns etc.)

I've really yet to encounter an argument explaining why lifeforms dumb and weak enough to become professional breeders/housekeepers are somehow the intellectual equals of the lifeforms that have created 99.99999% of everything valuable in the history of the species, artistic or otherwise.

>>5268763
>ability to make these connections
This is also the main skill of stand up comedians. I could also tell you about how the Cheerleader Effect in HIMYM illustrates one aspect of the Hegelian Dialectic, but when I do that it's a joke for humanities students, not something I believe to be philosophically astute.

>>5268780
Are you enjoying yourself achmed?

>>5268780
>I've really yet to encounter an argument explaining why lifeforms dumb and weak enough to become professional breeders/housekeepers are somehow the intellectual equals of the lifeforms that have created 99.99999% of everything valuable in the history of the species, artistic or otherwise.

True. But lets not devalue them and think less of them because of this. With all honesty 99% of humans never achieve anything of merit and just live mundane lives where they don't even use their 100 IQ to it's full potential.

>>5268781
Yes. Which is why I regard Zizek as more of a comedian than a serious philosopher. And, like a lot of comedians, there is some kernel of truth in some of what he says.

Like in this video: http://youtu.be/f1siWHmKV5c

>>5268776
>also just because he draws parallels his work is not discredited
No, but when the parallels are the only thing resembling anything like an original argument, you are left with citing Lacan, Hegel and Lenin, which is quite the horrible choice of 'people I will quote as authoritative thinkers without establishing how and why what they say is correct because I operate in an environment where such things as the basic value of thought can be established axiomatically purely by the thinkers canonization'.

>>5268783

Not really.

If there's an argument out there for why creatures that don't get what they want actually have the high ground (i.e. are superior not equal) over creatures that do, I'm all ears.

>>5268791
We all want happiness for ourselves, brother.

>>5268791
>>5268780

>women reclining at home like kings while men toil in the fields and stress in the office

>women live longer happier lives
>men die earlier, often from brutal heart attacks and stress

>men get rich, master skills, defeat enemies, just to impress women and get more mates

Ya, men really are in charge kek

>>5268795

Ah, so they were truly better all along. At last we truly see. When can I get my reparations for the systematic oppression of my gender then :^)

>>5268788
thanks, that's actually better than most of what I've read/seen from Z before. Also gotta love the shirt!

>>5268795
Attractive women have the potential to be the ultimate NEETS.

>jokes on you I wanted you to "dominate me" with your dick all along!
>thanks for the bear meat and house!

>>5268728
Thanks for the link. Logically, I'd expect there to be some residual degree of discrimination (just due to the screeds of social science research on gender perceptions). It's nice having a _tentative_ number to point to.

With that said, I do think the conclusions they draw from their research is overly premature, in the same way that most research in this area is (where there is a tendency to default towards an assumption of issue). From what I can see, they seem to assume that, if it can't be explained away due to what we have, it must be entirely discrimination. While that might very well be true, they don't seem to have eliminated the possibility that some, most, or all of that residual difference is due to gendered differences that are not 'biased' (e.g. if women are less willing to negotiate wages; differences in efficacy). I only skimmed it so do correct me if I'm wrong there.

>>5268520
>someone stronger than you, but you are smart
>stronger person beats you up
>you invent weapon with your smarts
>now you can beat them up
>yfw their strength no longer means shit

got any more excuses?

>>5268854

this ^

>women just as intelligent as men
>yet they could never argue this effectively or use their intelligence to their advantage, ever.

kek

troll thread

>>5268861
;^)

shhh

>>5268859
>>5268854
>gender pride
>2014
are we really forgetting that 90 percent of men are illiterate seed dispensers?

>the meek shall inherit the earth

These people should just go back to being Christians. It's easier to sort them out this way.

>>5268028
Why do you have to shitpost your obvious bait here? Women in the past weren't represented because the field was dominated by males, but in todays world there are female authors like J.K. Rowling that show the world women can write. Now take this battle of the sexes SJW shit back to tumblr you twat.

>>5268876
Thank god the oppression is over, and female geniuses like JK Rowling are finally allowed to bestow their great talents upon humanity, just like her predecessors Shakespeare and Homer

>>5268882
I never said it was as good as shakespeare, I just said the woman had a grasp of the english language.

>>5268028
>are historically and contemporarily underrepresented
They suck shit in those fields, they're not relevant to men, deal with it tumblr faggot.

>>5268876
/thread

>>5268028
>who on average have a greater (innate) capacity for language and verbal expression compared to men

Because men are better writers. It does not have anything to do with language and verbal expression.

Feminism just degrades men for being men and gets rid of all competition because "we are all equals".

I love women tho. They make great mothers and lovers.

>>5268912
>mfw I thought SJW was always fighting straw-mans
>mfw someone actually thinks like this

Wow. Just wow.

Because all women want to feel beautiful.

Men don't have this desire so they do other things.

Feminists denigrate their own femininity and seek out masculine things and masculine logic while attack the very men they wish they could be.

>>5269174
>men don't want to feel beautiful
speak for yourself

>>5269187
Maybe if you're gay.

But Johnny Depp doesn't need a girl to tell him he's beautiful to feel attracted to her.

Women love to hear that they're beautiful. If a woman loves a beautiful man, she still wants him to say "you're beautiful, darling."

Woman's first love is with herself.

>>5268584
And yet it isn't

>No one wants trolls on /lit/
Anonymous is the cancer that kills /lit/

>>5268642
I've been coming to 4chan as an anon longer that as a named, so your diagnosis is wrong.

>>5268720
>"the board representative"
You imagine this. It could be an inferiority complex. Sorry, not trying to be condescending about it either, but nearly EVERYONE is condescending to me, so you're going to get a little thrown back at you. Anon on anon condescension exists too of course.

>>5268722
>men didn't encourage us and support us enough. get on my level
"Encourage"? There's more condescension. Millenniums of patriarchy, Institutionalized rape culture. Have you noticed how girls and women are treated in so-called third world countries? This is what you lazy bastards are whining for and gee, pardon me/us, we don't want to go back.

>>5269212
>But Johnny Depp doesn't need a girl to tell him he's beautiful to feel attracted to her.
Speak
for
your-
self

>Woman's first love is with herself.
And your's is for anonymity, I see.

>>5269243
You're only resenting cause you feel that I'm a guy.

What is feminism if not an outlet for women to get together and remind each other that they're beautiful and deserve everything they want in life because their inner spirit is manifested in the physical?

Men don't need compliments and most are freaked out when they receive one.

>>5269243
I take it you haven't read Milton's Paradise Lost?

Maybe you should read books instead of posting in everything religion/feminism thread on /lit/.

>>5269254
>What is male rights activism if not an outlet for men to get together and remind each other that they're beautiful and deserve everything they want in life because their inner spirit is manifested in the physical?

>>5269263
MRA isn't a serious thing and they don't know how to critique feminism.

>>5269254
I like getting compliments if I feel they're genuine and have been in conversation with other men who have bragged about receiving compliments about their appearance. you're really sheltered.

>>5269277
But getting compliments isn't what makes men attracted to women.

A girl is hot regardless of what she does. She is born beautiful or not.

What women look for in another partner is a reaffirmation that they have been blessed by the gods, - that they are beautiful and whatever they touch becomes beautiful.

Feminism is exactly this principle at work.

If a woman isn't primarily in love with herself, then why does she get pregnant?

When you are the carrier of life it makes sense to put yourself first, to take care of your body, to think you're beautiful.

>>5269301
Mothers love their children more than their husbands.

And their children are just an extension of herself, her very own flesh.

>>5269254
>You're only resenting...
In that post? I'm Not.
>What is feminism if not an outlet for women to get together and...
It is soooo not. You have no idea. Admittedly many "First-wrold" women have no idea either. How can we expect the boys to know anything about it (with such shitty education systems designed to set us all at each others throats and not the problems with the world... Ah, but you're not listening.

>>5269260
>He thinks he said something of worth *Laughing women*

>>5269312
Look, why do you save so many pics of women and then post them on /lit/?

The same reason why a solid 80% of pics girls reblog on tumblr sensual pics of half naked women.

Women laugh themselves first.

>>5269323
> love themselves*

>>5269323
To give a mfw, to give an aesthetically pleasing image, it isn't always women, I like women and beauty, I am an artist or the visual variety at heart.

Sexism and the general ignorance of the plights of women, world 'round and throughout history, are all rather ugly to me and many others. I hope to teach in some small way, someone to reconsider a nasty habit they've picked up from somewhere that's been leading them down this scuzzy path.

>>5269350
>I am an artist OF the visual variety
>GET someone to reconsider a nasty

>>5269350
> i love to post pictures of women
> i love to talk about women

Yep. Women are in love with themselves.

And why not? When you carry life being in love with yourself goes beyond mere solipsism.

It benefits others for women to be in love with themselves.

A mother loves her child more than she loves her husband.

>>5269288
you're deluded man, get out more.

>>5269375
When a woman asks you "are you hungry?" what she really means is "I'm hungry, ask me if I'm hungry and then feed me."

>>5268073

Lesbos is beautiful.

>>5268028
i wish i was a woman i think getting published would be easier

Women are not "contemporarily" under-represented in literature or poetry.

>>5269378
what??? you're getting crazier and crazier.

>>5269437
Who's sheltered now?

Maybe once you get a gilfriend you'll realize that she wants to be the beautiful one in the relationship.

>>5268102
*Hugs*

>>5269373
>i love to talk about women
When the topic comes up. I've never started a thread on women or feminism. Just books, and one philosophy thread, which I was banned for. Now why was that?
>Women are in love with themselves.
Humans are in love with beauty. A sweeping statement but more accurate than yours.

...And now I see generalizations and sample surveys of one condemning the whole subset. Would you trogs just give it a rest.

>>5269492
I know you have no real arguments against anything I said.

I'm not sure why it's so controversial to say that men and women think differently. To say that they think the same ends up absorbing women into masculine logic.

women have been absolutely dominating since more women read than men. reading has been considered effeminate for ages now. The best selling author currently alive is a woman.

The only reason you think that way is that you have a huge prejudice against Christianity that makes you ignore women like Hildegard of Bingen, Beatrice of Nazareth, Bridget of Sweden, Christine de Pizan, Catherine of Siena, Simone Weil, Flannery O'Connor and other women who influenced Christian spirituality and mysticism with their works.

You want a specific type of women writer, don't find it and complain they never existed.

>>5268050
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

>>5269552
>I know you have no real arguments...
That you will listen to. I suppose that has to be true for you. So sad you have this mental block.
Wow, should I even bother explaining that there are differences but that both men and women's brains are capable of the same things, and that this give no reason for the sexism that only the stupidly brutish blind can't see. Both are equally susceptible to the mental decay this hyper-capitalist system has put out. BOTH. If men are so superior why can't they fix this problem with their inferior mothers, sisters, wives, daughters? The answer is so obvious. They don't want a fix to the problem, they want doe eyed cattle to own and complain about. Don't be so fucking naive or assume I am.

>masculine logic.
There's nothing masculine about logic.

>>5269627
>Who? Who?
>Simone Weil
Oh. Uncle Toms

>>5268824
The fact that women are paid 5% less than their male counterparts right out of college (i.e. before they got the opportunity to negotiate wages or prove to be more effective). That's straight sexism. I don't think that women would be universally worse than men at these things either, so as to prompt such a gap. If women are paid 5% less right off the bat, before they were able to prove themselves, then I'd say it's not unreasonable to assume that the later drop to 12% less would /also/ be from unjustified discrimination.

Why you faggots argue that much on this topic? Clearly, men superior to women, but difference is not so big.

>>5268561
I really like this. Growing up I hated that I had to be in competition with all my male friends to be a bigger jerk because if I didn't the women would not look my way.

>>5268207
>that painting
I just laughed my ass off. Her face evokes perfectly the level of "shit nigger what are you doing" feeling she must have felt when teh artist asked her to hold a pottery plant standing.

>on average
>innate
oh boy here we go

>daily reminder empress katarina read more voltaire and killed more men than any of our generation's authors

>>5270609
So you're saying you felt pressured by the matriarchy into living up to certain traditional masculine standards?

Women are not THAT underrepresented, I think.

>>5268028
lack of self-awareness/capacity for reflection

>>5268561
i like how she perpetuates the image of women being unable to lift a coffee cup with one hand...seriously, have you ever seen a photo of a woman drinking coffee with one hand in an advertisement or a presskit etc. ever? i think citibank MAY have had one on their website login page at one point but she was still doing the peek-a-boo shit in your photo...a lot of feminism is retarded but i do find these kind of cliche subtly sexist memes bizarre, i mean do they teach people at $100k photographer school that women should always use two hands to drink coffee? i don't get where this shit comes from ...

>>5270716
Shhh, if we don't over represent the west, the whole thing falls apart

>>5268795
>men get rich, master skills, defeat enemies, just to impress women and get more mates

Geez, sounds like you've no penis.

>>5268561
these falsehoods hurt to read

>>5270783
ten bucks says she has a penis, that post was too elliot rodgery for any biological female to write

>>5270783
It's true though.

>>5270783
>>5270799
I'm guessing that was making a statement on how men can't be feminists without being accused of "white knighting" and how our idea of masculinity is inherently aggressive, violent, and even obnoxious. If a guy doesn't act tough or expresses sensitivity/sentimentality/kindness, he often gets accused of being a pussy. Isn't that accurate?

>>5269580

pretty sure OP means high brow literature, not genre trash

>>5270783
>can't come up with a legitimate thought
>my feelings are hurt

Is Mademoiselle the new Feminister?

>>5270887
Feminister was actually better.

>>5269662
>34:20
>What is your scientific basis for not believing this?
>My scientific basis? Uh. I have a theoretical basis.

>>5268083

>seriously naming yourself Mademoiselle

this is why everyone thinks feminists are a joke.

>>5268028
Male dominated societies (patriarchal societies) rarely allowed women the luxury of and access to free artistic expression. The ones who were giving this freedom were almost always upper-class/caste. Until very recently women were forced to exclusively be maintainers of homes and children. This is just one example of why rightist, hierarchy based society squanders the potential of that society, thus being detrimental and worth discarding.

>>5270902
Actually I think we need a couple of people who actually call out all the /pol/tarded masses. Yeah I get irony, satire and all that but some retards actually take it seriously.

>>5270907
Allow me to play doubles' advocate - if someone named themselves Brownbear and Deep&Edgy, you wouldn't generalize on all women or feminists like that because they don't sound like female names. See, you're being sexist.

>>5269662
This guy is awesome! He really cuts down to the bone and does not let anything go

>>5270907
The reason you think feminists are a joke is because you feel a deep insecurity about yourself and project your malaise on a perceived 'weaker' object, which is also why you say 'everyone' instead of 'I'.

>>5269697
>Oh. Uncle Toms

Quod erat demonstratum. If a female writer is not a lesbian atheist feminist, she is not even female according to you.

You can choose any perspective and form arguments to support it. Why would you choose to believe that women are inferior? What's the motivation?

>>5268212
>Men look for solutions, for escape and they take responsibility. Women just complain and blame others while taking the easy road.


>being this ignant

huehuehue

I'm not even feminist but man this site harbours some butthurt sexism.

>>5268506

Virginia Woolf wrote a few well-received novels

>>5270951

so all men in history had "deep insecurity"? the very fact that "systematic oppression" exists admits that women have been looked on as inferior, and so to psychoanalyze someone based on misogyny makes no sense since that's been the prevalent view in society for centuries, it isn't an anomaly by any stretch of the word.

>>5270641
I know! I imagine her and her parents laughing about it for years after.

>>5270843
It is.

>>5270880
Men these days are reading genre trash too, so don't blame the gender.
I find it amazing this board has grown this close to the classics. I hope some of you can inspire some kind f change to this genre consumption cycle. ...

>>5270902
Than why'd we chase her off?
Mademoiselle needs no comparisons
>>5270929
>doubles' advocate
X]

>>5271093
I was being dismissive, true.