/lit/ - Literature

>>Greater population

This one mostly. It's well known (for instance, Jaron Lanier has pointed this out) that you can't have creativity when the collective becomes to large

>>5696699
so the arts are becoming trash?

then what do we do? i feel desensitised already because of the internet, so much information, it's rotted my brain and creative output

>>5696708

*too large

>>5696708
why can't you have creativity in large populations?

>>5696713

You get a herd mentality. The bottom line becomes consensus, instead of innovation. I'd say that radical feminism is a very good example of this, where a consensus with a group mentality (and therefore with the loudest, most obnoxious voices) is more important than for instance error correction

>>5696722
So we can cross out feminism since it's a symptom not the cause.

>there are something the Jews aren't behind
>for everything else, there's feminism

>>5696699
None of these reasons apply, there is only one: capitalism. Which is also responsible for the other phenomena you mention btw.

>>5696755

This, precisely.

Don't cut yourself on that edge, OP

>>5696748
The Jews are actually behind feminism

>>5696770
>hur dur mr edgy
>i think this is a valid opinion
>this tumblr meme

>>5696773
No, feminism is actually behind jews.

>>5696776
>It is not okay for him to refer to things as edgy
>It is is entirely acceptable for me to refer to things as tumblr
You sound like an edgy virgin, tbh

>>5696780
>le virgin meme

Nice ad hominem. Keep 'em coming.

>>5696778
This. The Jews were actually characters in an Adrienne Rich poem that were later brought to life in a CIA laboratory.

>>5696755
Capitalism is responsible for Marxism

>>5696808
Not possible. Feminism is behind the Jews, but the Jews are behind the CIA

>>5696755
I guess communism did do a good job of lowering populations.

>>5696818
Gosh, what a Shapeshifting Reptilian thing to say.

>>5696809
Obviously, your point being?

>>5696699
> arts are failing and in decline
[citation required]

>>5696821
*rubs bifurcated tongue segments together*

>>5696784
You're also a faggot and annoying I guess

>>5696699
nah it's because the state doesn't sponsor it anymore

not that it's actually in a decline

>>5696699
>>Feminism
>>Greater population
> no realizing capitalism is the reason of all our problems

I bet you're an amerifat.

>>5696773
no, is actually the nazis

>Capitalism

>>5697019
Thank you, yes. Corporate culture puts consuming as the primary religious experience. Art is merely a supplicant to enhance consumption.

>>5696699
>Feminism
As if actual feminist goals were actually getting in the way of anything... Feminism may "complain" but it isn't censoring anything. Your stupidity is showing.

>>5697034
>he/she doesn't think feminism has completely changed modern day media and political thinking

>>5697034
>Feminism may "complain" but it isn't censoring anything.
Have you been asleep during this whole gamergate thing or something? 4chan and reddit banned and censored anyone mentioning it.

>>5697037
>4chan
>Reddit
>Ever contributing anything to the arts

>>5697073
we wrote a novel

>There are people who think feminism is left wing or radical
>There are people who don't realise it's a marketing tool to make big business and US foreign policy seem progressive

>>5696699
>Daily reminder the reasons the arts are failing and in decline come to a few things.

Capitalism
America
patriarchy

>>5697034

Yes but the vulgar appropriation of representational taboos is perhaps ineffective to achieve said goals. I don't see how aping masculinity helps feminism's cause when feminine characteristucs are still so widely loathed in our society.

I am quick to laugh at modern feminism in most cases but I don't see how it should be blamed for the loss of artistic passion and creativity.

>>5697081
Was it even any good?
A novel? Not four or five but a novel?

>>5697088
You're right about capitalism, but American supremacy and patriarchy are merely bygone phases thereof, and the current regime of respectful identitarian multilateralism isn't treating the arts much better.

>>5697110
Patriarchy isn't a phase of capitalism. It's been the way of things since pre-Christian times, and has been the manner of civilizations all across the board.

>>5697109
here friend

http://legacy.totalitarian.info/public/assets/totalitarian.pdf

>>5697110
That's weird cause the arts were fine under capitalism in the 1900s, particularly early on.

>>5697116
Oh well that was imprecise of me, my bad. Sure, patriarchy is way older than capitalism, but from the perspective of the capitalist mode of production, which is inescapably our own, patriarchy is but one way of organizing things, which can be, and has benn, discwrded as it gets in the way.

>>5697126
Sure, no one ever said things don't get progressively worse under capitalism, especially as the social values that once legitimized get swept away by the thing they exist to justify.

>>5697128
So do you think that other forms of economic control are without patriarchal control?

>>5697142
If one form, capitalism, is evidently possible without patriarchy, then so are other forms, most likely, yeah.

Out of genuine curiosity bc I see these threads all the time, what's the consensus on the board about what government system we should be run under? I mean...they all kinda suck.

>>5697154
The state-and classless world society, duh.

>>5697154
Marxism-Leninism

>>5697138
You're severely mistaken if you believe the "social values being swept away" today are at all a function of capitalism before, say, religion (or rather alterations thereof) or basically anything else.

>>5697167
And, why do you think I am mistaken? The way I see it, religion, patriarchy, individual responsibility, guaranteed rights, all things good and bad, are, when viewed through the lense of capitalism, of mere instrumental value. Once they're no longer needed, they're gone.

>>5697154
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, this board is absolutly and unabatedly uneducated about the real world, so they believe in some other world where Marx had plausible opinions on economics and where capitalism is attributed to all of society's failures instead of the incompetent people and governments running these societies, and where all of the successes (see: the world since the industrial revolution began) are somehow attributed to these incompetent governments.

And lamentably this view is held not only /lit/wide but also nigh worldwide, particularly prevalent among young teenagers and adults who know not a thing about what they theorize on in the matter.

>>5697167
I would agree with this post. Economic control and production distribution seems to me to be a more finite thing that could change quickly with time say within the span of 50-100 years depending on the needs of a society.
Social control however comes from deeply ingrained traditions which are almost impossible to shake.

>>5697176
I don't believe religion will ever be discarded. It's infeasible.
My own personal beliefs aside.

>>5697180
>social control
Well, this raises the question of who' in charge, and wether the person (hint:it's not actually a person these days) actually needs these methods of control. And capital, the god of our world for some 250 years, doesn't seem to need them that much.

>>5697184
Yeah, probably not, but religion will definitely change. I mean, look at what happened to the christian claim to actually enforcing its values in society.

>>5697176
Capitalism is a machination. It is a function of those working in it and it is subject to the failings of those working in it.

Capitalism doesn't need individual rights or anything of the sort that you listed. They only exist today because those operating capitalism (everyone) keep them alive. Thus the failing of these societal values came as a result of people you idiot, not of capitalism.

What is at fault when someone hits and kills a pedestrian with a car? Is the machination at fault or the operator?

>>5697196
What you don't seem to get is that capitalism isn't servile, hell, it isn't even controlable. We're already ensnared by an insane superintelligence, and you're talking about personal virtues as if there was anything left of them save wishful thinking.

>>5697207
What you don't seem to understand is that you don't understand what you're talking about, nor do you understand the hole humanity has dug for itself, so you blame it on an inanimate system and attempt to give that system animation.

Capitalism does not control anything or anyone. It is not an insane superintelligence. It isn't controllable in that we don't understand how to get exactly this or that out of it, but we use it every day of our own volition. The fact is that people are to blame for the problems of the world today, and especially for the destruction of their own personal virtues, though I do not agree that they have been destroyed at all to the extent you believe them to have been. When people with dumb ideas think en masse terrible things happen, like the communist revolutions, wars, destruction of morals, etc etc.

>>5697228
Sure, keep telling yourself that there is still a semblance of autonomy in our lives (that is still somehow compatible with the degree of social control you seem to desire). It might actually help you in the next major crisis when it hits your country full force, which is the usual time for capitalism to allow its subjects some room to experiment with some horrible ideas, like idk, probably some neoreaction shit that very surprisingly ends in a bloodbath or something. Can't tell the future though.

>>5697179
Man, it seems like every government system was some guy going "alright guys, I've got a great idea, it's gonna be so awesome, but we all have to play by the rules."
Man I can't even get most ppl I know to play a board game much less play by the rules.

>>5697238
If there is a lack of "autonomy" today, it is invariably the result of government (see: people) rather than an inanimate system.

I'll respond like you though, because it seems like fun.

Sure, keep telling yourself that a vague idea, a literal nonentity, controls aspects of your life. It might actually provide you with a scapegoat when man decides to do something stupid again.
Can't tell the future though.

>>5697179
How much Marx have you read mate? I'm going to guess none.

>>5697251
That's an apt comparison, thanks. Applicable too. I will use that in the future.

If art is in a decline is just because it's a social element born with catholicism that had to prove itself autonomous after the enlightenment, if people drag the institution through the mud or not doesn't change shit. How can people in 4chan be so mad about non issues and other people's opinions?
If you care so much about art do your own, don't go around telling people how or how not to do what they want.

>>5697251
Yeah, it's weird how people reduce everything to stupid levels without noticing that they are missing the point.

>>5697256
I've had the misfortune to have at one time been a Marxist myself (at least in name) and I read the Communist Manifesto in high school. Then in my studies at school we examined Das Kapital.
To my knowledge Marx was an infinitely better sociologist than economist.
Which wouldn't be difficult considering his economics are absolute hogwash.

>>5697254
>it's all the government/people making bad decisions
I see why this line of reasoning is appealing to you, as when it's all just bad decisions, things could be changed. And not just by waiting for people to revolt against the machine they're trapped in, but by nothing more but the right person doing the right thing, preferably in a position of power, and preferably you, or a leader that cares for you. All very cuddly and comforting, and I can't even blame you for falling for it, as so did the Bolsheviks, and they were probably a lt smarter than you.

>>5697273
Your arguments have been getting weaker from the start (which says something considering how weak they were at the start), and now you've been reduced to this. Your inferences retain approximately nothing from my statements and I don't think I'd be wrong to assume you are now just projecting onto me some views you wish I had so you could attack them.

So, yes, this gives me a very cuddly and comforting feeling.

>>5697290
Wait, so now you're just going to assert that I'm wrong and claim victory? Amazing, human stupidity never ceases to surprise me, as if it was asa whole a rather intelligent thing.

>>5697271
>read the manifiesto
>skimmed the capital
>I fully understand him
jolly good show

>>5697299
You haven't been arguing about principle for a few posts now and instead have solely been attacking me and attributing to me incorrect and baseless assumptions.

But you were wrong from the start. Your argument is the equivalent of telling me in the manslaughter scenario that the car actually held some ill will towards the pedestrian and decided of its own accord to strike him or her.

Or rather, that the car was a "superintelligence" that controls our very lives.

Only STEM god tier think this.

>>5697305
I suggest first that you learn the definition of the word, "examine." Then consider that 200 pages is much more than sufficient to decide whether or not someone has even a simple grasp on a subject, especially when the subject is as misunderstood as economics.

>>5697325
1200 pages rather, or however long that abysmal wreck was.
200 pages is still fine though.

>>5697271
If you've read the Communist Manifesto how can you possibly think this

>where capitalism is attributed to all of society's failures instead of the incompetent people and governments running these societies, and where all of the successes (see: the world since the industrial revolution began) are somehow attributed to these incompetent governments.

Since Marx is pretty clear in praising Capitalism and the industrial revolution for tearing apart feudal society

"It (the bourgeoisie) has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions which put in the shade all for exoduses of nations and crusades"

>>5697311
>capitalism is just a thing we use, like a car
see, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, I'm simply trying to tell you that that is not the case, that if anything, we, actual human individuals, have become instruments i the use of something that can't even consistently be described as an entit.. Also I'm trying to come up with reasons why you would refuse to even consider this on the go, and yeah, hoping that some of it will go through the hardened shell of subjectivism. As always, I'm hoping in vain.

>>5697036

Speaking of which, I came to the realisation that the BBC's output is now 50% political blame-culture, 30% woman's culture, 20% crap documentaries with the same introduction, and 10% other.

>>5697370
I am speaking in contemporary terms when I say what you've quoted of me, not in terms of what Marx thought.

>>5697383
That is simply not the case, however much it might feel like it today. It will be made clear next time a global collapse of sorts happens that human beings are human beings and we are still very much masters of our own destiny, even on a more individual scale. As we are on the literature board, I'd recommend The Plague to you if you haven't read it.

>>5697179
Fuck off to /pol/ you uneducated fuck.

>>5697407
>That is simply not the case, however much it might feel like it today. It will be made clear next time a global collapse of sorts happens that human beings are human beings and we are still very much masters of our own destiny
More silly subjectivism, and fucking PROOF that I had been right abot you hoping for the crisis to empower the likes of you. What could possibly go wrong, I mean, has anything ever gone wrong when people have used a state of emergency for a power grab? Never heard of such a thing.

And the Plague happens to be one of my favourite books, my sort-of-nigga.

>>5697389
But you have to admit they are quite productive, giving a 110%!

>>5697423
I hope more than most things that a crisis that could affect my livelihood does not happen, actually, despite the fact that I couldn't care less about the government I live under. I also don't care to prove my points or to "empower my likes." I just think that a crisis on a large scale is bound to happen sooner or later, and will almost certainly happen within our lifetime.

And my saying that it is not the case is less subjectivism and more just pure fact, unless you buy into silly conspiracy theories with no logical or empirically-evidenced base.

>>5697436
>conspracy theories
So, asserting that people, no matter their position, are completely powerless in regards to the economic system that encompasses them is a conspiracy theory (who are the conspirers in that?), but denying this on the ground that it's all just powerful people doing bad things is...something else?

>>5697036
The topping has changed, it's still the same cake. Do you really think mainstream feminism relies on more than "we need more people in the workforce" and "women need to consume more" which is precisely the capitalist ploy ?

>>5696699

>Feminism

>>>/v/

>he thinks Hatred is "art"

>>5696699

>>5697474
holy shit nigger, go back to tumblr

>>5697497
holy shit, go back to your neckbeard board, no idea which one, be it the one that talks about jews, or the one that talks about games, or whatever.

>>5697489
Stop oppressing fags, you cis scum.

but if there are more people, dosent that mean that statistically there are more people around who would appreciate high art, and more unique forms of art as well?

i think the real problem is that the voice of the mainstream is so deafening
how many times have you showed someone an artist or genre and they went "WOW i love this, and didnt even know that is existed!"
that seems crazy to me. you can make art that people would LOVE to appreciate and you might die never getting noticed/read/listened to.

the commodification of attention is what i believe is killing art more than anything else.
and this can be seen in how much of high art is more novelty based now than it ever has been in the past.

>>5696699
>Feminism
I think you mean women

>>5697474

>>he thinks Hatred is "art"

Go the fuck back to Reddit you clueless normal.

>>5696699
The main problem is the culture industry, aka the second greentext point. That is responsible for the current incarnation of feminism.

>>5696699
Actually, it's entirely because of two reasons: mass media and capitalism.

Why bother reading a long, difficult book when you can entertain yourself with 6-second videos much better suited to your attention span?

Why bother developing your understanding of art and culture when money is the only thing in life which can make you happy?

>>5696699
> not the jews
> not the 40iq nignogs let in for affirmative action
> not the multi-cultural dystopia that would never appreciate it


although your three are valid points.

/lit/ - we hate women

Got to love these Marxists circle jerks. I can hear the back patting across the electrical wires.

>>5700095
Maybe you do.

>>5700095
i hate both, i am a misanthrope

Art is failing because there are too many people.

How can a man stand to look at a painting when he lives in a sardine can, inhales the greasy stink of the masses squeezing him on all sides, when there is nowhere to go where the machinery of man, of warm bodies, of hunger and desire and competition to exist haven't stripped everything of their beauty and humanity?

TOO. MANY. PEOPLE.

>>5700143
>both
there aren't just two gender, cisbigot

>>5700095
implying you can be a Feminist and like women

>>5696699
The Arts are doing just fine.

>>5700175
i thought trans people thought explicitly that, that there are two genders, otherwise how do they reconcile all the fake penis vagina business

>>5700155
Oh now I see why /lit/ thinks the arts are failing. You are all over-socialized city idiots that project way too much. Move away or get back onto some useful drugs, not just the popular shit.

>>5700199
It's not the same having dysphoria than thinking that genders aren't socially constructed. There has been trans people in very different societies, from India to native americans, and while it still presented it had different social implications.
Why does it have to be a balck and white things? Are you 15?

>>5700212
>/lit/ thinks
We have constant aesthetics threads in which we discuss the progression of the arts and the spectatorial experience through the middle ages into modernity and through the lenses of multiple philosophers since most thinkers commented on the roll of art in human life.
The ones who think "art isn't as good as it was 300 years ago, because I know a lot about how social changes work" tend to be the same people who ask for the reactionary rec chart that includes people with compeltely opposing views just because they are sort of reactionary against something.

>>5700230
...how can you feel like your gender doesnt match your body if gender is just a social construct, that makes no sense

>>5696699
then kill yourself to reduce population.

>>5700230
What the fuck is wrong with your English, nigger? Go back to France, faggot.

>>5700242
social construct doesn't match their body so they want to get a fake vagina sewn inside their loins to make the social construct match their body better. perfect logic!

>>5700242
There is body (where the dysphoria runs), gender and gender roles.
Nurturing is part of the female gender, it's present in most females from humans to octopii, cooking dinner for the male is a gender role tied to 50's america salaries.
>>5700267
I really don't get offended when someone can't even understand how gender roles change constantly, but I'm sure you're offending someone so keep at it and I'm sure you'll be successful.

>>5697531
No it's actually the opposite. Art needs elitism to be good. If we want art that is rooted in Being we should go back to the enlightened monarchy.

>>5700294
can you a body and no gender?. can gender dont have gender roles?

>>5700294
gender roles don't change constantly. the tasks might depending on culture but the soles at their most basic are the same. they have to be of the feminists would have no argument.
women's roles revolve around the home . whether you are a medieval aristocratic woman organizing the castle stores and weapons or an American woman in the 50's prepping dinner; the roles are the same only the tasks differ

>>5697088

But patriarchy is a condition of having a society in the first place, it is especially foundational for the arts- there is no Mozart without Patriarchy. If you stick with matriarchal communitarianism you will never gain enough power, creativity( you need all the dynamism, "opression" and conflict that patriarchy causes to make a good environment for artists to draw inspiration upon) and wealth to have a flourishing art scene.

Capitalism/Liberalism /Democracy is the main cause though of course, Feminism is inconceivable in traditional class based societies because back then noble women were allowed to be governers, get private tutors and take up what ever hobby they liked, unofficially get involved in politics to a degree that women have yet to recover, and have enough lackies that their husbands can't fuck with them too much ect, and peasant women and men were generally equalized through shared labor and through the fact that the women being able to give birth meant the village would survive, Meideval feudal subjects often venerated Mary more than even Christ because they had such a string veneration for the feminine in general. It's mainly the dependency of bored bourgeoisie women with allot of their husbands money to spare and entitlement issues that gave rise to feminism, as it was the logical end point of egalitarian/liberal ideals to bring women into the fold of suffrage, owning property ect- without liberal principles we get no feminism, no cultural degradation, and ect.

You need eccentric aristocrats with lots of money to spare in order for the arts to flourish, once art becomes based on the dictates of the masses then you are stuck with the lowest common denominator stuff that is the democratic consenus of "the people" ( aka Myley Cirus, Micheal Bay films etc).

>>5700343
This guy gets it.

>>5700389

I think there is grounds to say that aristocratic women had more opportunities than bourgeoisie house wives. I mean it's amazing how many great letters you can find from the 17th century between noblewomen and Philosophers like Leibniz, Newton and many others were they show that they have been doing Philosophy and been intellectually stimulated their whole lives. Bourgousie women got to command their community youth dance, noble women helped initiate crusades. There is a pretty big difference in scope.

>>5700382
>Body withuoutgender
An alien maybe? Even intersex peopla have a dominant gender.
>Gender without gender roles
If you lived in a land without any other animal, probably. There only way to not have a role is without interaction.

>>5700389
>womens roles revolve around the home
Good thing humanity always had homes
>a medieval aristocratic woman organizing the castle stores
Good thing there weren't male valets, assistants and butlers doing those thing for the aristocracy. I'm sure the Lord was going to the battle front meanwhile instead of doing social interaction.

Even if in most societies the role of the woman was secondary and related to that of the man, you can't compare how the mongols lived, where women were expected to fulfill government roles to leave the man space to fight, against inca society that had such over population that both male and female constantly worked the fields.

Even if you say "natural roles" fish don't behave the same way as octopii, lions do different things than bears.

>>5700294
You may as well have said :I can't explain this doublethink".

If gender is a social construct, the only transexuals who should exist are ones who decide they want to be a woman (for fetish reasons or mental illness), not who feel like they are supposed to be women. Because if everyone is born neuter and society genders them, as feminists like to claim, then people will be raised according to their biological sex and transsexuals as they claim to be shoudn't exist.

The only difference between trannies and people who think they're supposed to be dogs is that one became a pet minority of the progressive movement.

>>5702019
>Calling everything doublethink
You know that the concept of thinking something but doing another thing is only turned into an insult in 1984 to go with the though police theme, right?

>If gender is a social construct then there should be no gender
Anyone thinking or understanding or perpetuating that sounds dumb as fuck. In a control situation without any kind of interaction there could maybe be a lack of social norms, but no one can grow up without a society and we aren't born complete and ready to do everything. Humans finish their development outside of the womb, and during that time many things are molded and made.

>only transexuals who should exist are ones who decide they want to be a woman (for fetish reasons or mental illness), not who feel like they are supposed to be women.
That sentence is so dumb. How do you decide something that you don't think about? But yeah, I'm glad you're policing this stuff you're making the world a better place one 4chan post at the time.

Try to sage when cheap trolling, be civilized with the rest of the board at least.

>>5697435
Maybe there are overlapping percentages.
You can blame stuff and simultaneously make material targeted at women.

>>5697454
Not the guy. I agree that people are pretty powerless in regard to their environment but whether it's the stock-market or the weather doesn't make much of a difference.

>>5702146
Things aimed at women ARE pretty much just blaming men for everything.

As far as I can tell that's the only thing they even enjoy anymore.

>>5702171
That and fashion, decoration, celebrity stuff.

>>5696699
>Feminism
For decades, classrooms were designed to favor boys and now that classrooms have finally been made gender neutral, girls are thriving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZymFMmpOa0

>ending privilege does not equal oppression.
>relying on privilege to thrive is weak.

>>5702207
>classrooms have finally been made gender neutral
What do you mean by that?

>>5696699
daily reminder that whining about it doesn't do jack.

>>5702209
He means that because school structure has been made to favor women through emphasis on rote memorization rather than problem solving and through teachers' self-admitted preference for female students (because they're all women themselves), they can now excel because men's inherent superior intelligence has been handicapped.

>>5702209
what she says makes sense if you replace "classrooms" with "schools" or "the education system"

>>5702270
I'm more interested with the "gender neutral" aspect.
How to reconcile this >>5702264 with the words "gender neutral"?

Kek the arts have been failing since churches stopped commissions

It's just all entertainment and wish fulfillment funded by money laundering

Art was never supposed to be a career choice but too many entitled artists wanted the prestige of older generations so it is where it is now

>>5702275
You don't. The only people who think the education system is gender neutral are feminists who want to use it to bolster their claim that women are smarter (but men and women are still equal you guys!).

>>5702294
I'd be pretty interested in reading some actual feminist writing about equality.
Not doing the usual feminist stuff of whining about this or that social outcomes based on their conspiracy theory, but explaining their equality thing.
How do they reconcile medical, biological evidence that men and women are two distinct groups of animals that evolved together with their claims that they are equally deserving?
Is there a review of the successive views of prominent feminists over how exactly equal men and women are?

>>5696743
It's a currently standing threat, the greatest and arguably most difficult to differentiate within the "main problem". I think it stands that we need to mention considering that one will be less inclined to believe that feminism could have such an effect by the mere mention of "Over-population"

>>5696778
I've never heard or read anyone else say it.

>>5702325
>How do they reconcile medical, biological evidence that men and women are two distinct groups of animals that evolved together with their claims that they are equally deserving?

They don't. They ignore anything that conflicts with their viewpoint or claim it was born out of preconceived misogynists notions in male researchers.

Maybe you'll find an actual discussion of what you're looking for in an article by some academic, but I can assure you most feminists have never read it.

Feminism isn't an ideology based heavily on logic. The ideas and positions it takes depend on whatever the feminist is FEELING now.

>>5696784
As a virgin you couldn't know what you are up against. That is the plain simple truth. I wouldn't call it ad hominem anymore than I'd call a high school student unqualified for high science work.

>>5697098
When's the last time a feminist admitted to her own bullshit? When's the last time a feminist cited the opposing argument as valid BUT?

>>5702207

You should look into Christina Hoff Sommers work on how much of disadvantage boys are in school these days. All the literature is based on feminine values, compliance and memorization is valued over creativity and problem solving, and boys are shamed and called sociopaths if they play fight with their friends, are too active, or express their masculinity. When a girl is struggling it becomes a huge event and teachers intervene, talk softly to them and try to solve the problem, when a boy is struggling it's a non event and they don't bother even trying to fix the problem.

>>5697190
Assuming we could manage the situation with merely the knowledge of who could predicate this step if it wasn't absolutely insane to attempt a true analysis this way. Who would merely provide a new platform, but considering ours isn't merely one among the myriad we'd be facing a label with even less information that than which we are attempting to ascertain.

>>5702171
>they
women or the bbc?
Still political blame and women culture could be part of the same, if the anon made them two things is because he had two things in mind.

>>5702275
"it is" rather than "belongs within" for starters. A simple distinction but logically cumbersome.

>>5702386
When I was in HS most of the wasted time was with the "trouble makers" and trying to put the class at their level so we were all in the same page even if they weren't ever going to read a single page of the text book. Are things worse now? Are you a HS teacher?

>>5702386
Uh... I'm a girl and when I struggled (4 years ago in high school), the teachers just told me I was lazy even though I spent all my time out of school studying or reading (probably because I "look" smart, brown hair & glasses). Meanwhile helping boys because they're busy after school playing sports and don't have as much time for academics. And also because now there's a perception that boys are more ADD than girls and will need more help in school.

>compliance and memorization is valued over creativity and problem solving

Again, no, the focus is on critical thinking now. It's not creativity, but it's definitely not memorization (STEM subjects being the exception).

>>5696722
>You get a herd mentality.

Show any study showing a direct relationship between population size and prevalence of herd mentality.

>>5702386
>Christina Hoff Sommers

An interesting person given that she's probably one of the only feminists who actually approaches gender equality as equality and not whining and blaming and the response of mainstream feminism is to declare her a closet misogynist and MRA.

Really goes to show that the "extreme/radical" feminists are the majority.

>>5702459
That's usually a post-effect truth, kinda like nature. What else don't you like?

>>5702325
>How do they reconcile medical, biological evidence that men and women are two distinct groups of animals that evolved together with their claims that they are equally deserving?
How do you reconcile that every animal has male and female versions and how do you support your claim that someone is inherently deserving for their nature of a product of a human creation like society?

>>5702457
>I "look" smart, brown hair & glasses
I love this. Since I'm skinny and pale guy people assume that I'm smart and even get surprised when I don't know something I have no reason to know. It's one of the stupidest stereotypes.

>>5702466
Not every animal has sexes. Sexual reproduction evolved because it permits more genetic and phenotypic diversity for every unit of reproduction, which matters a lot for animals whose sexual maturity takes years.

>how do you support your claim that someone is inherently deserving for their nature of a product of a human creation like society?
I don't. I'm not a socialist, I don't think people should get free stuff just because they exist.
This is why I question the political belief that the government should force men to give women benefits for the sake of so-called "equality".

>>5702207
Yes, I sure do love going to the museum to see all that female art in my car that was made by men. I love coming to my home designed through architecture made by men to read the greatest literature written by men whilst also watching tv and going on my laptop which are devices made by men and then buying stuff from the internet made by men. I love lying in bed or by the fire which was discovered by men whilst listening to the greatest music of all time that was composed by men. Then I sleep solemnly because I'm a man.

>>5700175
society says there are two of them and since they are a social construct it means that they are as society says they are, therefore there are two genders. but i agree that there are more than two sex though, intersexual, trans and people without genitalia should be recognized someday.

>>5700230
there are two genders in most societies, and the case of trans people that is present in some societies is just people having a gender different from their sex, also gender is a sprectrum so it's not black and white, but rather nuances of grey with an idealized black and an idealized white that don't actually exist. Also your first sentence a shit.

>>5702591
>fire which was discovered by men
citation needed, bigot

>>5702457
>the focus is on critical thinking now
KEKKKKK

>>5702625
>picks on the only one questionable point

It's okay, woman.

>>5700413
>class based societies
>pre-industrial revolution
i don't think class is the word you want to be using here

>>5697088
>patriarchy
>people still genuinely believe society is biased against women while they go to their federally funded women's studies classes, get paid 30K in student grants to study in said classes, and campaign for their federally funded Government- endorsed feminist groups

>>5696699
>153 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click here to view.
Why, mod?

>>5702457

Then our anecdotal experience clashes, though you may be on to something with jock's getting special help, I noticed that while they were idiots they never ended up in the containment classes for the "troubled kids" like most of my friends did, maybe your school didn't have these.

I never experienced a call for critical thinking until I started doing Philosophy in University, I was in Sociology and they were anti-critical thinking to the point where one of my profs admitted that he would lower marks because it had an un-pc slant, even if the argument was solid.

What we do know is that millions of dollars have gone to making school more accessible to girls. That boys get considered sociopaths for play fighting and writing stories with violence in them , get drugged up due to "add", and are seen as being "troublesome"- where girls are not. This may have been your problem: that because most girls do so well in our school system designed for girls, that they blame the individual girl if it doesn't work out for her. Boys often drop out because they are uninterested and feel like they don't belong in the school system. My experience is that the curriculum generally is met enthusiastically by girls and more feminine boys( with a focus on feelings,empathy for people, compliance, repetition, conformity) , were more masculine boys ( more focused on action, the world of objects and concepts, unruly and dissident) find school incredibly boring and underwhelming. It sucks because intellectualism has been thoroughly feminized, being smart has been seen as being antithetical to being strong when the two should go hand in hand.

A big issue is also the material, too often boys are forced to read feminine touchy feely stories that the girls love when they should be reading something about men conquering shit, by the time the good stuff comes in high school most boys have learned to see school as chore and realm for girls. Hamlet and Oedipus I could actually get into- but Anne Frank will always be meaningless to any normal 14 year old boy. We develop empathy later in general and have that masculine energy that needs to be expressed, if society doesn't give us civilized avenues to do it in we will get dangerous.

>>5702700
Personally I think we are all caught in some unintelligent spiral that has no real goal or motivation and has long over-lived its design. Its pure conspiracy to think there are some old fat cats somewhere pulling the strings on society. No doubt the rich want to keep their position in the grand structure, but who doesn't? The powerful are just as helpless as the rest of us and its only by material attachment and unconscious consumerism that we think just because the rich own many things they must be happy, or even in control.

>>5702678

Having a strict division of clergy,nobility and peasantry, with unruly merchants semi on the outside, as a strict social order still counts as class. It just isn't based on economic class ( a merchant could potential be more wealthy than a nobleman but would still be of lower stature).

>>5702618
I was pretty drunk last night. I sort of agree with your post. Wouldn't you say that there are different gender roles in the same society too, a single mom working doesn't have the same social image than a soccer mom and it's not the same if they are middle class or elites.

>>5702745

I think we can look at it this way, they will all have some root in masculinity/femininity and male/female bodies ( maybe minds as well if you have a more clever society) that is a base line- but other things can act as modifiers.

Ancient Greek had very interesting roles in that being biologically male was not particularly meaningful on it's own, a male slave was a hardly a man and was in the same category as women and children- at the same time when you add to that biological factor other ones like certain social ties and achievements then you get the actual concept of a "man". Most primitive societies ascribed manhood only to those who went through certain rights of passage. So in some sense our gender roles have gotten more biologically essentiallist over time.

You don't have to give in to SJWs. They have no real power.

literature has no relevance. sjw have made it relevant. you should be thanking them you can study such a worthless topic

>>5702824
Say that to my bleeding earlobes... actually its better that you write it down.

>>5697154
Libertarian Socialism or Social Dem. Choose one.

>>5702790
I was agreeing with everything you said up to your conclusion.
>So in some sense our gender roles have gotten more biologically essentiallist over time.
I think we've switched our criteria to make it look more based on nature but we still take a silly interpretation, a very obvious example would be accusing someone of being a virgin for having certain ideas. We feel forced to justify ourselves through nature because we live in a science oriented time, but people still repeat ideas from pre socratic times and show as much understanding of science as people at that time. You can read a lot of pseudo science in this very thread without any justification outside of "I feel this is that way" or "I see around and see it's this way", which is practically anti scientific.

But I'm starting to drink again so I may be rambling, I'm sorry if that's the case.

>>5696722
I don't think so.

We're more people on Earth than ever, and people are trying to get away from the herd more than ever too.

>>5697154
Liberal socialism or Social dem.

>>5702864

Well being correct or not on ones ideas of biology does'nt make one any more or a less a biological essentialist, one can be religious fundamentalist and misinterpret their entire holy book ( Evangelicals).

Still we should also consider what our criteria for rights is, being biologically human gives you certain rights regardless of any other qualifying factor, and once you reach a certain age you gain more rights, regardless of any other qualifying factors saved mental disability which is another biological fact.

I think we overvalue mere biological "humanity" far too much, this fits into the larger conversation because the more you value the average the less the unique has a chance to thrive- when being merely human is sacrosanct that which starts reaching out beyond the average is scary and shut out because the threatens the reign of the average and safe "humanity".