/lit/ - Literature

>>5361233

alternatively you could talk to women irl

>>5361235

>>5361235
Isn't this book about feminism crap? I don't think this is what the op is looking for.

>>5361238
Spoken like a true NEET.

>>5361261
[tips fedora] well said gentlesir. upboat.

Second Sex errs a bit on the side of tabula rasa (emphasis on errs), I'd definitely read it but follow it up immediately with Sexual Personae

>>5361238
Do you types ever get tired of posting this defensive "how about you just talk to a real women irl lol hth" cliche to shame MRAs or whatever it is you think you're doing

>>5361261
It is feminist but Beauvoir tries to define what "femininity" is and then what it should/could be, using a lot of psychology stuff and obviously outdated methodology but it's still enlightening

I'm still pretty early in The Second Sex myself. Seems like it'll get more interesting as I continue on, though right now it's a lot of "laying the groundwork" with obvious bits about how women came to be in their current situation.

>>5361233
>12-04-26-Having-Fun-300x200.jpg
Guy on left not having fun.
Guy first from right probably not having fun.

>>5361416
>that close-up on the gushing fan's face

I cringe just reliving the scene in my mind. Exquisitely filmed.

>>5361233
basically there are no books on normative female psychology. you want to go read 70s books and before about female "heterosexual dysfunction" and other case studies of "deviant behavior"

or go read about adolescent psychology, mood swings and anger problems or go and read about cluster B personality disorders and case studies.

it's taboo to discuss female psychology in any way.

go read womens magazines where they say there's no such thing as a clitoris.

Or just ask a female
Hint: ask away.

>>5361496
Go fuck yourself.

>>5361233
Stop pretending there's some platonic form out there that determines the universal essence of all women. There are many different ways to be a woman so just go out and talk to them.

Schopenhauer.

>>5361498
No wonder you're single.

i finished To The Lighthouse recently and found it useful in that regard.

>>5361416
>filename

>>5361233

>>5361504
they will lie.

>>5361524
Who doesn't?

you can read up on feminism for starters
first, second, third wave/intersectional
then read shit like jane austen, bronte sisters, virginia woolf, etc

I think it's just one guy creating all the anti-women troll threads. He seems to make one every two days. My guess is that it's a 'transperson' from /lgbt/, who's transformation into a woman went horrifically wrong and he now harbors a seething resentment towards anyone with a real vagina.

>>5361549
They do it better

>>5361233
>deeply explores
>women
>needing a book for this
They're not complicated. In fact there's nothing there to even understand. Just take it up with good ol' Nietzsche:

>Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.

>Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution — it is called pregnancy...

There, done.

>>5361564
this thread is not anti-woman, you oversensitive prick

Hijacking this thread with the applied psych framing of the OP

Anyone have recs for non verbal inference applied psych? Specifically interested for poker tells but general is fine.

>>5361589
The surprise accusation was the icing on the cake
"It was a ts from /lgbt/!"

>>5361496
That's the worse thing to do. Females lie so much its not even funny

>>5361619
you are a horrible 'human being' and you should commit suicide

>>5361233

the manipulated man

>>5361575
Why was Nietzsche so based? It's the greatest form of comedy to read.

>>5361635
Most people lie, anon. For example, you're lying to yourself about how little men lie.

The book of pook if you want no hoolds barred enlightenment on the subject.

Its a really transformative read

>>5361849

>inb4 the rest of /lit/

b-but that's misogynistic nonsense for rapists and virgins ! women are all unique special snowflakes!

>>5361787
Well, no, he's not because he didn't speak to males' frequency of lying. Hopefully you're a male because this poor shifting of blame would be such a low power female that I almost feel bad you're so ugly too.

>>5361915
>he didn't speak to males' frequency of lying

It was obviously implied.

Too many women anon commenting interrupting our feelings in this thread

>>5361925
You obviously inferred and then tried to pass it off on someone else. That you did it so ineptly and continue in the same vein is subpar for males or females at this point, so we won't attribute it to your gender but your individual stupidity.

>>5361508
this is the essay
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Women

>>5361932
Nah, you're just dumb as fuck. The statement was "females lie so much." The phrase "so much" implies excess beyond some lesser amount of lying, but who sets the standard of this lesser amount since half of the population have already been identified as exceeding that amount? In other words, "so much" in contrast to who? By process of elimination, it must be men. I wouldn't think anybody would need this explicitly spelled out for them, but in a world full of petty, beta "gotcha!"s and "b-but he didn't s-specifically say that!" I guess it's to be expected.

>>5361959
Again, this is your inference rather than anyone else's implication. Repeating what you wish others to have implied is wholly your own implication reflected from your pure inference, and delineating the process by which you inferred still does not allow you to blame anyone but yourself.

Even if we accept that your initial fallacious inference is right, the further moral inference you draw that this would some how make women more inferior because they show facility at lying, rather than the multivalent advantages both moral and amoral that facility could produce, shows the prejudice you have both against lying, and, against women and men.

In short, you're a terrible human and can't into NeoKantianism, so your moral or intellectual judgements are amusing only in their simplistic folly and artifice. It really is a pity you don't have a pretty face to fall back on.

>>5361575
First quote means what it says, but the second quote is a lot more than what it appears to be, considering "pregnancy" is a term Nietzsche uses numerous times to describe the a sickness, such as a crisis of conscience or a nausea with the world, that has potential to give birth to beauty; most likely he means the solution is either literal pregnancy, or figurative pregnancy. Nietzsche does not believe you can acquire depth until you experience psychological nausea.

>>5361575
And yet he sucked with women....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Andreas-Salom%C3%A9

>>5362007
>the further moral inference you draw that this would some how make women more inferior

No such "inference" was made.

If you want to understand the psychology of women read Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.

>>5361233

Women get laid based on the narrative.

Its a bit like creating a movie or book scene, if it is written in a sexy and exciting way, they will go for it.

They often wait to see what you will do, e.g do you scrunch up and get nervous or do you pull out a joke to break the ice.

Do you nervously glance at them if you like them, or do you "accidently" bump into them and find a way to start some small talk.

>>5362177
Then how do you suppose that it is petty, beta or otherwise (terms which donate moral or other inferiority) to state the inference is not implication. Either it is false to claim inference is just inference, and therefore petty and inferior by nature of a falseness and obscuring of the truth, or it is indeed true to claim inference is just inference in which case to call it beta is to call truth telling beta. I assumed that the moral implication brought by beta or petty applied to such implied dissimulation and therefore casts its shadow on all lies (while still lying about inference implying implication) but perhaps the moral judgement is against saying x is x not y (in which case inference is again just inference, but the truth is morally inferior to lying and saying that it's actually implication).

So, either the moral judgement was against truth, and therefore any assertion that inference is implication is moral and alpha only because it is false, or the moral judgement is against lies, and the assertion that inference is implication is both false and inferior.

Bringing beta into it was a bad, bad plan if you didn't want to draw a claim or inferiority or superiority, unless you intended to make an absurdist claim about orthography. I doubt that though, more likely you make such inferences while lying to yourself about their origins.

Women see things in terms of relative qualities instead of intrinsic ones. They don't think "what is this person/thing actually like?", they think "how does this person/thing appear to others?". This is why they aren't interested in art or science (obviously a generalization). Ideologies like feminism, intellectual interests, music etc. are just social accessories to women as they try to appear a certain way to others.

The truth to them is what what the majority accepts as truth, and they behave in whatever way will maximize their social position. Whenever they are criticized they automatically go on the defensive without actually considering whether it is a valid criticism or not. It's all about appearances and social acceptance.

Look at modern feminism. No feminist actually does anything other than telling everyone else they have to change. Purely an attempt to influence public opinion to give them as much freedom as they can get.

>>5362283

Women lie because objective truth is not important to them, only what other people think is true.

why have I never met a woman that is funny. Like with men, every fat or ugly guy I know is really funny or really clever, but I've never met a woman who intentionally made me laugh.
>inb4 meet more women

>>5362306
Sandi Toksvig is pretty solid on QI but then she is also a dyke.

>>5362306
Because http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

>>5362325

lol, r9k figured this out already m80

OP, I will attempt to sincerely help you in your quest to understand women, but it may require accepting a position you find unattractive.

>>5361496
This methodology is wrought with error. Ask any person to cast opinions on an entire group. Those opinions will necessarily reflect the experiences and prejudices of the one stating them, even if they are a member of the group. Therefore, they will be inherently unreliable, for one person cannot know all, and one person is not likely to be completely unbiased, especially if they are a member of the group.

>>5361238
This is the best advice in the thread so far. Seriously. I am not attempting to troll you: I say this in earnest.

From 300 yards away, I can still tell the difference between a female figure and a male figure, because to the human eye, other humans appear so different. But imagine us from a fish's perspective. They probably cannot even hope to tell the difference except perhaps from up close. To ourselves, we will always appear quite different from each other, but you must realize we are actually more similar than different. A good way to think about this is that women are 90% men. Respect the remaining 10%, but don't focus too hard on it, and you will be successful.

However, know this: you will never truly understand. You are just one person, and you cannot even understand yourself. How can you hope to understand an entire group of people? You likely don't even understand men all that well. You can dedicate your entire life to this pursuit, but the best answer will always come from personal interactions with women.

>>5361268
>shame MRAs

or to offer legit advice. seriously op may as well be looking for a book on how to swim or ride a bike

>>5361524
you will lie to yourself

I'll post "The Controversial Essay" about women that I read on my favorite 21C books, and although the author's name appear here from time to time in a good light, book that is vastly unappreciated and never was mentioned on /lit/ before me.

It's in Laura Warholic by Alexander Theroux, and trust me, it's witty.

>>5362520
http://pastebin.com/EQpL8xsS

>>5362325
This is actually a pretty good read, contains much information.