/lit/ - Literature

because those are the questions we need to find answers for

School holidays is another factor

It is obvious that /lit/ goes through cycles, like Rand -> shit philosophy -> Stirner -> shit religion -> misogyny

But what I'd like to add that /lit/ is so slow, each "infatuation" might just be one idiot who moves on after a month or so.

The solution is that mods should ban these idiots.

>>5940046
>But what I'd like to add that /lit/ is so slow, each "infatuation" might just be one idiot who moves on after a month or so.
Important point. No more than two people can probably create the impression that the board is completely overrun.

>>5940036
Women were never good at writing, /pol/ had nothing to do with that.

>>5940036
There are currently no misogyny threads in the entire catalog.

However the /pol/ factor and holiday issue might explain it.

>>5940036
>>5940036
what do you think the nature of a woman is ?

>>5940064
shoot yourself kindly

>>5940046
>>5940061
agreed, last time I was on here regularly it seemed like the same idiot was posting multiple threads of all his hare brained theories on women writers v. male writers
>>5940069
there was at least one yesterday that got pruned, so good on mods for that

>>5940074
solipsism

>>5940076
>2015
>wishing death on people

epic

Have you ever lived in the friend zone?

...oh you have not?

FUCK YOU, YOU DONT GET TO TALK

>>5940079
How does one go from

>there was at least one yesterday that got pruned, so good on mods for that

to

>Why are there so many misogyny threads on /lit/ lately?

>>5940091
There are a couple everyday for the past week or so.

>>5940069
>the nature
>of a woman
That's some conceptual retardation right there, there clearly is no such thing. People are quite different from one another, even within sexes and genders.

sidenote

someone shitposting: women have never written anything good
dummy: AcccccTuuuaalllyy I read a book by Virginia Woolf/Flannery O'Conner and it wasn't bad :)
(bonus): they write like men!

isn't helping

>>5940091
I meant that the mods deleted at least one thread and have probably been deleting more. There's usually one or two going at a time.

>>5940088
>le friend zone
I have no words for you. You are a disgrace, not just to all males, but to humanity. Leave and never return.

>>5940036
Answer is pretty simple. Those are valid questions (except "Why won't women like me", because you had to make it up for some fucking reason you dumb fuck)

There is a reason women generally are not associated with endeavors that bring insight into science/human nature/human thought.

The creative fire that brings about inventions and expands our species horizonts is and always was found primarily in the curious and adventurous male minds.

Women simply evolved in a way that does not favor deeper thinking.

>>5940115
lol

(I would also love if mods could start banning for evo bullshit derails.)

>>5940036
>Why can't women understand books
>Why don't women read literature
>Why are women so stupid

these come from /lit/ and have always been on /lit/, and just became more prominent as the second tier(below) arrived here and made it all more acceptable.

>Why are women so awful
>Why are women such whores
>Why won't women like me
these come from r9k-pol but to be honest these 3 are like what, 10% of the women-related complaints?

>>5940115
>evolved
Yeah, the males of the early hunter-gatherer associations were some profound thinkers, I'm sure.
Evolution has fuck all to do with it. But then again, arguing with you is pointless, as no amount of woman writers and scientists thrown at you will ever make you snap out of that narcissistic delusion, namely the one that you're destined to be a deep thinker, even if you spectacularly fail at the endeavour of becoming one.

>>5940120
>i dont like what that person said so im gonna try and censor it

i bet you consider yourself an 'intellectual'

How many mods do we even have on /lit/? 1?

>>5940124
as is said in every one of these threads, point 2 is factually inaccurate and I think most of these stem from bitterness at not having a qt lit gf///hating all those bitches in your lit 201 class (also a lot of bitterness at female profs and hs english teachers)

>>5940138
>/lit/
>bitterness at female hs english teachers
>hs
>female profs
you absolute infinite wut m9

And about 'bitches in 201 class', that one is more accurate, but guess what, there would be no bitterness if any of these girls had more brain than a rock or pyroclastic leftovers

>>5940036
I think it's just a natural backlash to sjw degeneracy. The whole country is sick of their shit. ABH in '16.

>>5940144
Oh wow, you're literally 'that guy'.

>>5940147
I'm never bitter over someone being slightly less gifted than the average or anything, but I can understand some anons on /lit/especially the ones from the USwhose peers in 201 haven't read any books other than twilights in their life

>>5940146
>the whole country
What country would that be? And what's an ABH?
Also
>degeneracy
lel

>>5940149
is this English?

>>5940132
Last time i checked total percentage of female commercial patent holders (aka. inventors of shit that is actually useful) amounted to around 5.5%.

As for literature, take any /lit/'s "classics" or "essentials" chart and consider how many of the great works of literature were written by male writers vs female writers.

Evolution has a fuck ton to do with it. Mainly because main survival strategy for males was to manipulate the world around them (hunting, scavenging resources), while females mostly survived by mingling with each other inside social groups and exchanging resources for access to their vagina. Its a fucking fact.

>>5940146
Yeah pretty much. Men are getting bitter about constantly being told that they're awful.

>>5940036
i wonder why you care

>>5940151
my spoiler didn't work dear lady, may I have your forgiveness?

>>5940149
Ok I don't know what things are like in the US, but speaking from experience, the only friends I have who share my interest in literature are almost exclusively female, while most of the guys are into STEM shit, mainly games and programming. This also seems to be reflected in the respective academic fields.

>>5940088
Kill yourself.

>>5940150
>And what's an ABH?

>>5940088
Highway to the friendzone

>>5940166
>Kill yourself.
Rest assured, anon, some shameless little slut is already killing him.

>>5940152
Even if your theory held any water, wouldn't this make women more capable of producing and appreciating literature, not less?

>>5940164
That's weird, but it seems like your environment just consists of the individuals, while most of /lit/ complains about having colleagues/classmates that belong to the masses despite being part of a literature course(and they have no clue about any fine arts, because among the masses the indicator of artistic conscience is higher when it comes to men)

>>5940171
Good. She's doing the work of the Lord.

>>5940173
They write books, they're all just about old English guys writing letters and sexy vampires making out with doctor who so no one in their right mind reads them

>>5940138
Lol wut

I have no respect for women in literature and I've passed multiple English courses with female professors with 'A' grades. It's not hard, I just spout minor feminist rhetoric irrationally and "keep an open mind".

Dealing with feminists regularly makes me more misogynistic than not

>>5940152
so? saying 'great' lit/stem fields are dominated by men=women are inherently biologically and or evolutionarily inferior ignores the entire history of the world

your average 20 year old has very little knowledge of the 'good' stuff in any arts field, acting like it's only women is dumb
>>5940182
look at any year end list and it's at least 50% (if not way over) writing the best literary fiction

>>5940174
Oh well, I did mention that it gets reflected in the academic fields, didn't I? It's just that I'm probably more reluctant to evaluate peoples tastes and abilities based on nothing but the superficial aquaintance you get from sitting in the same seminar. But if I had to, I'd still say that women are at least as intellectually capable as emn, at least within the fields of history and philosophy.

>>5940185
cool for you? pretty sure your misogyny is all about the way you filter the world

>>5940189
*50% women writers

>>5940189
Lol le "women were oppressed :(" bullshit

>this type of shitposting is worse than that type of shitposting

ok

>>5940182
Did you just equate 19th century lit like Austen and Bronte with shit like Twilight? Because, you can't get more pleb than that. Do you even read?

>>5940201
>bronte
>any better than twilight

So many tumblerettes on /lit/ it's embarrassing.

>>5940204
Ok, did you read Bronte OR Twilight? Having read both would make you quite the interesting demographic.

>>5940206
>lel tumblr
lel /pol/
Discussion over.

>>5940206
The most hostile, vitriolic feminists are men

Yes, they're really that fucking gay

>>5940216
What are you even saying?

>>5940036
I've just never found any of the arguments about why I should respect women convincing.

I'm the guy from >>5940046
Judging from the pants-on-heads retarded level posts in this thread, it seems to be more than one guy

Like two really busy idiots or something

OP: better delete the thread, no good can come from this

>>5940222
But anon, why aren't you literally groveling at women's feet? That's what a real man who supports equality does

>>5940226
>people are saying things I don't agree with
>censor everything
You see how retarded you sound right now?

>>5940218
they prove their male nature of conquering the reality outside of them
they fight for their feminist women who keep the fire behind their backs

>>5940220
That we could save a lot of time by just throwing the respective buzzword at kne another and call it a day.

I can't wait until we get rid of all the men. They're violent, oppressive and useless in the modern world.

>>5940234
>censorship
You do not seem to understand that concept, friend.

>>5940248
>breaking bad and house of cards both feature power-seeking, destructive male protagonists
>two of the best-rated shows in recent history

People despise men who are weak

>>5940261
Yeah, another argument in favour of the destruction of masculinity.

>>5940115
Indeed. You see, this mystic 'creative fire' is actually the product of a special hormone from a gland found somewhere in the penis. Tangentially, some individuals have been found to execute a significant amount of cognitive functions remotely from said area, and seem to operate best when the penis is stuck up the individual's own ass.

>>5940269
You can destroy yourself

>>5940261
It's nice to see that people like you have to take talking points from tv shows, on a literature board. Do you have any idea how useless you are?

>>5940273
Obviously I can, but why would I want to do that?

>>5940274
You didn't even comprehend my words so I have nothing to say to that

>>5940248
>They're violent, oppressive
Actually most of them aren't. A very small minority are violent. The problem is that women are small and weak. Everything is frightening to them. Everything is a threat to them. That's why they are obsessed with making themselves feel safe.
The only problem is eventually safety bores them and they wander off to scary, freer, less boring places. But eventually they get scared again and try to turn the wilder places into Miss Manners no fun zones.

Well, OP, imagine how lost you'd be if we had to talk about books instead.

>>5940282
>the problem is that women...
Stopped right there. This line of reasoning is, to me, the least manly mode of thought.

>>5940270
This is very true. In fact, sexual arousal and male masturbation is what causes the creative proces. That's why all succesful, important, creative, brilliant geniuses have at least a couple harddrives filled with hardcore pornography lying around. Jerking to porn all day is what truly divides the sheeple from the GODS. If you do not masturbate at least three times a day -- always while watching hardcore, shameful pornography at it's maximum volume level in your mom's basement -- I've got bad news for you: You have no chance of ever achieving anything.

It's because /r9k/ isn't a containment board, it's the tip of the spear.

Pre internet women used to beg men to tell them about their feelings.
Post internet women run to mods and the FBI to try to prevent men from telling them about their feelings.

a lot of well reasoned, factually supported, and not totally demented reasons for why bitches ain't shit itt

>>5940218
Have to wonder what those dudes are thinking, they can't all be pussywhipped

>>5940334
Maybe they want their female friends, lovers and relatives to succeed in life?

>>5940334
My flatmate is a way bigger SJW than any woman I've ever met in real life. He is even constantly telling the women we live with they are misogynists, I have no idea what is wrong with him.

>>5940343
female pls go

>>5940343

>>5940290
>Stopped right there. This line of reasoning is, to me, the least manly mode of thought.
Suit yourself, anon. If you want to believe that all men are violent and oppressive because women FEEL that they are, then by all means believe what you're told.

>>5940362
that post about all men being violent was obviously b8

>>5940349
>implying I'm female
Wow, you're pretty retarded. As I want to ask every second poster ITT: do you even read?

>>5940362
No, not all men are violent and oppressive, man in his more civilized form can also be the passive-aggressive twat he accuses women of being.

>>5940365
>that post about all men being violent was obviously b8
>points out that a post in this thread might be b8
Um, thanks anon.

>>5940375
>man in his more civilized form can also be the passive-aggressive twat he accuses women of being
And he can just be self-sufficient and genuinely indifferent.

>>5940387
>genuinely indifferent
Oh well, the existence of genuinely indifferent people is hard to prove, as they don't show up to discussions.

>>5940371
ad hominem, typical for a girl.

>>5940401
>Oh well, the existence of genuinely indifferent people is hard to prove, as they don't show up to discussions.
Meh. Somebody falsely accuses them of being violent and oppressive and they say, No, I'm not. Somebody falsely accuses them of being passive aggressive and they say, No, I'm not. If it weren't for the false accusations, if you could just leave them alone, you'd hardly ever hear from them at all. False accusation culture is the problem.

>>5940410
Nah, your accustion of me being female was the adhom. Pointing out that that makes you a major retard is just appropriate.

>>5940471
why are you this mad, lady/male feminist guy(even worse case)?

>>5940457
>leave them alone
Nobidy's gonna snatch you from the basement. If you can't bring yourself to be indifferent to 'false accusations' of not being indifferent (thus obviously proving them right) you can also just walk away from the screen.

>>5940475
I'm not mad, not at all. Calling you a retard isn't an expression of anger, but rather a dispassionate judgment.

>>5940477
>Nobidy's gonna snatch you from the basement.
I'm not so sure. Best clear up things before they get to that point.

>>5940482
the fucking edge
>>>/reddit/
>>>/kitchen/

>>5940483
Oh my, that's quite the victim complex you got there.

>>5940488
Yeah, super edgy, calling people retards. Have I hurt your feelings? Somebody has to.

>>5940496
you're beyond hopeless.

get help irl.

>>5940504
What would I need help for, especially if I'm beyond hopeless?

>>5940152
Y'know, there's actual research done on the ).
They really are a more fruitful way of approaching the topic than highschool traumas mixed with bizarre power fantasies.

>>5940509
it's exactly why you need it.

cause you're a sissy, hehe, and a super edgy one.

>>5940490
It's just a question of accuracy in description.
Do I want to violently oppress women?
No.
Do I passive-aggressively withhold affection or not do what I'm expected to do in order to be controlling?
No. I withhold affection because I genuinely don't feel any. Do I not do what I'm expected to do to be controlling? No. I just don't want to do it. It isn't a case of do what I want you to do, feel what I want you to feel and I will come back. I'm not coming back.

>>5940513
>lel you're a sissy
>also you're so edgy
You don't have any semblance of self-awareness, do you? Actually, it's good that you have come to this board, as books can help a great deal with that. Just pick a nice book from the sticky, read it, repeat the process. It's not too late for you, hopefully.

>>5940520
Oh wow, who are you even talking to right now? Because, it's not me.
Tell me, how is your relationship with your mother? And her marriage with your father is or was it stable and happy?

women are pretty awful creatures, really. it's better to oppress them, for our sake and for their own.

>>5940530
I'd actually agree with the first sentence, but For the sake of truth and accuracy I'd suggest replacing 'women' with 'human beings' and I don't think awful creatures gain anything from being subjugated by other awful creatures.

>>5940529
>Oh wow, who are you even talking to right now? Because, it's not me.
Whoever falsely accused me of being either violent and oppressive or passive aggressive.

>>5940548
No, no. Who are you not coming back to?

>>5940524
but you're the man trying to be submissive to women here mate.

>>5940560
>submissive
Solidarity is not submission.

>>5940558
>Who are you not coming back to?
Just differentiating from passive aggressive. The aim of passive aggressive behavior is to be controlling. I don't want to control women. As long as they leave me be, I will leave them be.

>>5940572
Yes, of course. And a woman wouldn't leave you be, so you left? Who was she?

>>5940570
kek

>>5940530
Why I don't bother with /lit/ these days

>>5940578
Interesting timeswe live in, when the mere thought of solidarity seems so unrealistic and utopian.

>>5940582
yes, there are too many women and young girls here, not to mention the girly boys.

>>5940575
>And a woman wouldn't leave you be, so you left? Who was she?
No specific woman. Just false accusation culture.

>>5940530
Amen, brother. *tips Budweiser cap*

>>5940607
No specific woman falsely accused you, but some abstraction thereof did? That's a little bit hard to believe.

>>5940036
Read "On Women" by the Schop Dog.

>>5940625
... Video games?

>CH. For pity's sake, be silent there :
>I see a woman coming.
>Who looks as if she'd news to tell.
>Now prithee both be quiet
>And let us hear the tale she brings,
>without this awful riot.*'
>CLEISTHENES. Dear ladies, I am one with you in heart;
>My cheeks, unfledged, bear witness to my love,
>I am your patron, aye, and devotee.
>And now, for lately in the market-place
>I heard a rumour touching you and yours,
>I come to warn and .put you on your guard,
>Lest this great danger take you unawares.
>CH. What now, my child ? for we may call thee child,
>So soft, and smooth, and downy are thy cheeks.

>>5940088

kek

>>5940624
>No specific woman falsely accused you, but some abstraction thereof did? That's a little bit hard to believe.
This whole sub-thread is me responding to posts claiming men are violent and oppressive or passive aggressive. I thought both of these accusations were false and wished to clarify my feelings on the matter.

I still have no idea how the people in /lit/ can be so well read and still be such fucking idiots incapable of seeing women as actual people.

>>5940644
So no one ever falsely accused you of anything?
But you still feel compelled to talk on and on about how you're totally no danger to anyone as long as they leave you alone and never ask anything of you? Call that a case of protesting too much.

>>5940659
>So no one ever falsely accused you of anything?
I just got (guilt by association) accused of being violent and oppressive or passive aggressive.
>But you still feel compelled to talk on and on about how you're totally no danger to anyone as long as they leave you alone and never ask anything of you?
Again, merely clarifying my position. I was falsely accused of violently oppressing women. I do not nor do I want to violently oppress women.
I was accused of passive aggressively trying to control women.
I don't try to control women. I'm indifferent to them. They can do what they want as long as they don't mess with me. Then I will speak up for myself. It wasn't a question of suggesting danger to anyone, it was merely speaking up and explaining that I was being falsely accused. That my views and feelings were being misrepresented.

>>5940658
I often wonder this too anon. /lit/ is better than most boards though.

>>5940658
>I still have no idea how the people in /lit/ can be so well read and still be such fucking idiots incapable of seeing women as actual people.
>actual people.
hardly a ringing endorsement.

>>5940677
No one is talking about your views and feelings, as violence and oppression, or manipulative behaviour for that matter, aren't things that happen within your head. Few violent, oppressive or manipulative people would actually consider themselves such, so your self-reported status of a person with good intention is utterly pointless.

>>5940658
Because most people on here aren't actually well-read, and most of them are in their early twenties and don't know shit.
/lit/ is full of self-proclaimed intellectuals, who think reading a little bit of the Western canon makes them a fucking genius. They may be smarter than your average person but not by very much.

>>5940088
>implying the friendzone isnt a nice place

>>5940698
>your self-reported status of a person with good intention is utterly pointless.
This is 4chan m8. Everything is utterly pointless. That whole long conversation. Complete and utter waste of time.

>>5940685
I don't fucking get it. Bunch of fedora-wearing motherfuckers who think they're superior for reading Victorian Lit. Probably the types who say Percy Shelley secretly wrote Frankenstein.

I'll admit that I only come here every now and then, but I don't think I've ONCE seen Toni Morrison mentioned on this board.

>>5940718
Yeah I know, but that particular insistence on 'I'm a good person because I say so' was above-average pointless.

>>5940088
You don't live in the friend zone. The friend zone lives in you.

>>5940722
>reading victorian lit
Fedoras don't do that in my experience, only women. Fedoras only read Dawkins and Ayn Rand.

>>5940725
>Yeah I know, but that particular insistence on 'I'm a good person because I say so' was above-average pointless
I feel that your feelings about my expressing my feelings are merely average pointless.
It feels good to be above average.

>>5940733
Hey! I was a fedora for several years, and there's definitely a massive pool of fantasy and sci-fi in there as well.

>>5940088
6 years

I've had 3 gfs since and currently on a 3-year relationship git gud

>>5940725
>'I'm a good person because I say so'
Where did you get that? I just said I was indifferent.

>>5940789
Alright, let's make that 'I'm not a bad person because I say so', shall we?

In theory I only hate the women who won't sleep with me. It turns out that is all of them.

>>5940808
Thank you.

>>5940809
Even the ones who will sleep with me are pretty fucking awful.

Imagine a life where you have never been great at anything, never felt the urge to be great at anything, never felt that magnetic admiration to someone who was great at something, wanted to imitate and ultimately defeat him. Just nothing. Literally all you do in life is exist. Occupy space. pass the time. You're a chick.

You're bored, as usual, tweeting about your fucking hair and not even feeling any kind of happiness from it, just soothing your constant need to be bitter and cunty and petty toward other women. Every single thing you've done in the past year was mundane, shallow, and boring. You spent the last six hours reading kinda-interesting Reddit stories about people who made interesting Halloween hats for their kids or some stupid bullshit that you think is interesting and you may say is interesting but you're not really sure if it's really interesting. You're just fucking sitting there, gestating, fermenting, with a moist hole between your legs that guarantees you'll at least never have to get up and move around and work to support yourself.

And then you see men, over in some corner, having fun. You've never seen this before. What are they even doing? Instead of their consciousnesses merely sitting in their thick skull and revolving around itself, they are imbuing their conscious energy and intentionality into external objects, crafts, goals, projects. All the bitterness and cuntiness you feel nonstop seems to be absent, as they congratulate each other for being victorious, and happily learn from someone who defeated them. These creatures are truly content to be alive. They have found purpose in a purposeless universe.

And your gaze turns back on itself, on your self, and you realise you've never had that. You can never have it. You're just a stupid cunt.

So you get up, you walk over there, and you fucking ruin everything. Just ruin the whole fucking thing. The five seconds of attention you get will be worth destroying it. Because you're a woman.

>>5940865

Just...perfect.

>>5940036
Nice streamlining there, I've never seen those threads but unless you dig the archives and post them in this thread I'm pretty sure half of them are just you being an insecure princess in a persian carpet enthusiast forum

Why are women vapid twats with bad opinions?

>>5940865
This. Women just aren't pushed by society to improve.
Being a woman is easy mode. Even if you are not even decent at something, if you are a woman, people will applaud you for being interested in something like a normal human being should.

women let me have sex with them. they're great!

Such threads were frequent on /lit/ last year untill like September; nobody complained and many of the threads developed into constructive discourses.

Then /lit/ got infested with libtards and even the faintest edgy post gets.
>go back to /pol/

You had to start blaming the jews for the demise of the white race on /lit/ to get told that back in the days.

>>5940912
So, the standards of discourse have significantly improved? Good.

>>5940922
No they have deteriorated to:
>i don't like what you write
>back to /pol/
>modsmods

>>5940922
If you want to post on 4chan, try to get used to people voicing opinions that you dislike. Otherwise go check out some place like SA or Reddit where there are special nannies to make sure you never get hurt feelings.

>>5940096
That fact is kind of hard to get across to the normal /r9k/er who has spoken to three women in their entire lives (discounting family members), especially when all three likely reacted in a negative fashion IE: Not sucking their dick immediately.

>>5940939
Anyone who dislikes or disagrees with a woman is just a pathetic virgin

>>5940248
This won't ever happen.

>>5940865
I can't tell if this is comedy or not

>>5940036

Its simple their are three types of males who frequent /lit/ boards with this bullshit.

1. Guys who havent gotten over that one time they tried to talk to their crush about minecraft and she just walked away, and are now complaining about how the friendzone sucks and how girls dont like nice guys.

2. Guys who see it as their responsibility to abuse any form of anonymity to come across as edgy on the internet.

3. 69 year old extreme right wings who are still mentally stuck in the 19th century.

Im not so sure about number 3. presence on 4chan, but hey who knows.

>>5941244
>Its simple their

stopped reading there

>>5940939
You don't them blowies.
They don't owe you likes.

>>5941244
Gonna rape ya!

>>5941244
There have always been guys that just weren't that into women. Even when marriage and family was the standard unquestioned default.
Marriage and family are no longer the standard unquestioned default. More of these guys realize they don't feel the way they are supposed to feel about women. The internet gives them the ability to express themselves.
It's not edgy. It's just freedom to express your feelings despite the disapproval of others.

>>5941288
>are no longer the standard unquestioned default
*is no longer the standard unquestioned default.

>>5941288
It clearly isn't indifference, this should be more than obvious. It is hatred. Indifference doesn't even need a medium for exlression, as it isn't even really a sentiment, but rather a lack thereof.

>>5941266
>You don't them blowies.
You don't *owe them blowies.

>>5940936
Not really. 4chan and those sites are the same in userbase, they just get mad over different dumb shit. 4chan is only better because of the site setup moot stole.

Its /pol/ and in general the last ditch grasp of the white cishet male at maintaining his oppressive position. Give it a few years they'll disappear and we can have a grown up imageboard

>>5941319
>Indifference doesn't even need a medium for exlression, as it isn't even really a sentiment, but rather a lack thereof.
Sometimes you need to express it. People ask you, 'how come you aren't jumping through the hoop?' Sometimes you have to tell them, 'I don't want the treat that you're offering as a reward. And I'm not afraid of the stick.'

>>5940036
/lit/ is Bropenhauer's realm, get out landwhale

>>5940088
>the friend zone
>>>/r/mensrights/
>>>/r/theredpill/
>>>/r/highschool/

>>5941260

Sorry, I forgot I am on /lit/ where some of you people take it as your personal responsibility to exploit any spelling or grammatical errors to prove your point.

While we're at it I would like to point out the lack of a capital letter in your sentence.

>>5941376
>the stick
Yeah, there sure are a lot of downsides to not being interested in women, like...what? Seriously, if you're not interested, you've just cut your problems in half. Unless you're gay, that is, but then your problems don't involve women, either.

>>5941386
Sorry, sarcasm wont save you from confusing their and there.

Why the fuck would I read your post if you can't even conjugate past a 4th grade level?

ITTL: you disagree with my value system, therefore I'm upset and will start a thread about it

>>5941402
>ITTL:
What does the "L" mean?

>>5941402
Yeah, why would anyone want to discuss about value systems, totally gay.

>>5940658
because this is an anonymous anime image board and hence encourages
a) shut in teenagers who have no experience with women and thus blame them for all their problems
b) trolls and people who get a laugh out of pretending to be bigots because they have no other constructive way to spend their time

>>5941409
Spellchecker added the L
>>5941412
Retard, you think OP was trying to discuss values instead of employing the typical tumblr tactic of poisoning the well?

>>5941423
>muh virgins and trolls

ok anita

>>5940865

>>5941392
>Yeah, there sure are a lot of downsides to not being interested in women, like...what?

Haha no pussy for you.
Haha forever alone.

But I had pussy. I was in a relationship.
I didn't like it. I was happier alone. I don't have to jump through hoops anymore.
The stick isn't so bad. I like the stick now.

>>5941430
you think normal human beings chose to sit on a Japanese anime board hurling vitriolic abuse at an entire gender?

>>5941439
So, some people, who you don't have to interact with, might ridicule you for not being interested in women, which you're also not obliged to tell anyone, and that's your reason for having negative feelings towards women you need to vent somewhere? Oh boy, you sure are no big loss to womankind.

>>5941429
Oh, I see

>>5941449
>vitriolic abuse
Redundant. Abuse is inherently vitriolic.

>>5941423
I bet they don't get laid XDD

I bet pretty girls think they're ugly!

>>5941449
Women are emotionally, physically and intellectually weaker than men.

If you want to fancy me a pasty, obese virgin who likes to hotglue figmas because I speak truth then go ahead.

>>5941472
le strawman face

>>5941423
>constructive way to spend their time
because your pompous moralizing on a Malaysian image board is better?

>>5940036
moot is a retard who axed the containment board because WAAAA IT DIDN'T PERFECTLY CONTAIN /pol/ SO IT'S WORTHLESS.

now we have to deal with the neo-nazis posting twice as much on their secondary boards.

>>5941476
don't forget autistic

>>5941484
I'm not saying they're immoral for having no good use for their time, I don't either hence this comment

>>5941454
>So, some people, who you don't have to interact with, might ridicule you for not being interested in women,
That's the stick. That's the threat. Jump through the hoop or no pussy. Jump through the hoop or you'll be alone.
But I'm just as satisfied with free internet porn as pussy. And I like being alone better than in a relationship. So I'm not afraid of the stick.

>>5941500
I wish I was christian so I could pray for you

>>5940036
Well I'm an actual male chauvinist. Also something of misogynist. No, I don't feel bad.

I never knew men were that obsessed by their appearance and needed to be treated like princes by the entire world, gee thanks notlandwhale for revealing the truth

A lot of anti-feminism seems to arise from the folks who are smart enough to see that the average tumblrina is bad at making arguments, preferring regurgitate rhetoric than attempt to understand it.

The flaw in reasoning with antis is that they think SJWs are in anyway representative of the concept of "feminism" at large. It's like saying racist, homophobic Southerners comprise the entire US.

Strong arguments for what feminism is about (for and against) are difficult to make, because the definition is intentionally vague. It encompasses everything from radfems who believe men should be castrated at birth and reproduction done in vitro, to people who are outraged that we still live in a world where little girls are beaten for wanting to go to school.

Arguments that women are intrinsically inferior in some way often rely on circular logic or ignorance of contributing factors to certain statistics. Males inherit intelligence largely from their mothers (X chromosome). Women often outperform men on creative tasks.

There's really no strong standing point for being a misogynist unless you're dumb enough to believe the standard troll: "If women are equal to men, then how were they oppressed in the first place?"

>>5941508
>I wish I was christian so I could pray for you
There have always been men like me. You just can't get us through the hoop no matter what stick or carrot. Prayer, 'Oh boy, you sure are no big loss to womankind', their are three types of males who frequent /lit/ boards with this bullshit."
There have always been hermit types. Or monk types. Or convict types. The estrogen world just isn't for us. Now thanks to the internet, you get to hear what we think and feel. Think of it as a learning experience.

>>5941536
>It's like saying racist, homophobic Southerners comprise the entire US.

>IMPLYING

>unironically saying "misogyny"

lol

>>5941539
and the beautiful thing? You're on your way out of the gene pool buddy :')

>>5941552
Another stick.

>>5941536
>thinking women are inferior is dumb and ignores contributing factors
>the reality is that women are SUPERIOR

lol

women are actually this retarded.

how is it even possible that a group of people can develop this kind of superiority complex despite the fact that their only contribution for the entirety of human history has been raising children. women need to be re-domesticated.

>>5941562
>being this dumb

FUCKING LOL U REKT HIM !!!!1! :D

>>5940046

>the solution is more pro-marxist censorship

and this is why /lit/ will be shit forever

>>5941577
>le epic maymays XDDDD

you deserve punishment, but then again being female is its own penance.

>>5940625

Based Schoppy still rekking sloots 200 years later

>>5940036
Don't worry Anon, the majority of intellectual people in real life don't subscribe to these misogynistic views. /lit/ is just full of pseudo-intellectuals that have lived a sheltered life

>>5940589

so fuckin far removed from real life

enjoy having your head in the fuckin clouds, you naively ignorant optimist

>>5941588
I'm male actually. Give me one good reason that females don't deserve equal rights that doesn't involve their brain structures; emotions etc…

>>5941594
That was a pretty pessimistic statement of mine, what are you on about?

>>5940658

they're not the same as men, and they shouldnt be treated as such. it's unfair to both men and women if woman deny their biological tendencies.

>>5941581
but /lit/ was okay before the /pol/ faggots came

now everything sucks

Daily reminder that all Golden Ages in history involved heavily androcentric societies.

Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, Renaissance Italy. . .

>>5941609

>MOOT LIED, BOARDS DIED

>>5941603

>that doesn't involve brain structures

that's just it

you wouldn't let a dog eat at a table with a human, would you?

>>5941603
>that doesn't involve their brain structures; emotions etc…

lol, why the fuck would these not be valid reasons? give me a reason cockroaches or cows don't deserve equal rights that doesn't involve their brain structures, emotions, etc.

>>5941608
>equal treatment involves denial of biological tendencies
How so?

>>5941603

Because rights cannot exist without an inequality of rights

>>5940197
I think it is more of a they were at the place they wanted to be, with their families. It is a state every woman wants, but feminism somehow thinks they will be better off without children and with careers. And thus you have a generation of unhappy, unfulfiled women with the wrong priorities. And it is the fault of imaginary misoginy.

>>5941619
>>5941622
So, how many opinions, emotions, iq points and intellectual preferences may a human being deviate from your own before you stop treating them as human?

>>5941626

"equal" only in the sense as expecting women to act like men or take their roles; women were meant by the environment to be child bearers and raisers, any other role they find less fulfilling

>>5941643
And men were meant to play video games and masturbate.

>>5941640

they're still human, but men and women are not equal in the sense that women (biologically) cannot take on men's roles and still feel the same fulfillment men feel.

that doesn't make them less human, only different. value is not determined by output, but there exists a difference none the less.

>>5941651

there is actually a reason men act this way; they feel the need to achieve (hence video games) and to feel dominion over his environment (hence porn)

women play vidya and masturbate much less because they have less biological need to be fulfilled in that manner

you're right

>>5941640
why would you think that "being human" implies that you are entitled to anything, let alone the exact same things as all other humans? difference implies hierarchy, hierarchy implies inequality. a peasant does not have the same rights as his lord (nor the same duties), and women should not have the same rights as men (nor should the same duties be forced upon them).

>>5941651
are you literally some fat twat with a tumblr? What sort of logic are you applying? Women play video games and masturbate just as much as men, except there's no societal pressure to keep it underwraps incase someone accuses you of being a loser.

>>5941652
But that's alright, and dkesn't preclude equal treatment on any level. Most people wouldn't get the same sort of enjoyment out of the things I do and enjoy, but that doesn't mean nobody should want what I want for their own reasons.

Women are less culturally impressive/accomplished/knowledgeable than men but I don't see why we need to talk about it so often. I don't think it's a matter of innate ability but of social conditioning. Women are pandered to, spared in criticism and showered with praise for the most mediocre work. They are too socially valued and catered to to have the time/solitude to do much deep thinking. The way society caters to them also makes it so they're less likely to think originally and step outside established orthodoxies. Just how it is.

Of course not all women are like that but there are fewer exceptional women than exceptional men proportionally.

>>5941666

women want different things however than other men; that's like wanting rain when it's already monsoon season; rain is good, but not needed, and would actually hurt.

>>5941661
>a peasant does not have the same rights as his lord
Uh-oh, fucking time traveler detected. You should look that up, you're in for a naughty surprise.

>>5941675
but what is the original reason for this social conditioning? it must be because women could not handle the same work as men, and so were given less stressful (mental and physical) tasks...

and it developed from there

>>5941677
>Women want different things
In general yeah, probably, but remeber, you're all individuals. There is no good reason to preclude them from any position, just as there is no good reason to preclude men from any position.

>>5940865
too bad you'll never be great at anything =)

>>5941692

true they have the right; but will they enjoy it the same?

generalizations are useful because they allow true statements to be made in a sweeping manner, ofc people are different. but clouds are generally white, and women generally act this way.

Women are superior to men on all levels but one, and it is that difference that has defined history in men's favor.

Men are physically significantly stronger than women. The average, or even weak, male is more powerful than 99% of women. Through that, men have always been able to repress women. A woman can be as brilliant as possible, but if a man feels like being better, he could just end her without any trouble.

Notice how in recent years, now that women are given the ability to express themselves more and more, and violence against women is looked down upon, women have been performing better than men in every field but -- exactly -- tasks in which succes depends on physical strenght.

Women are outperforming men in everything. Women have become dominant in many academic fields (STEM remains a mainly male field, but even there women are winning ground). Men are busy sitting at home collecting neetbux and playing vidya while women are getting degrees. Men are sorting their porn collection while women are writing books. Men are losing while women are winning.

Sorry, men. Women are proving themselves superior. Only if all men decided to physically abuse all women, could men becoming number one again. But that isn't going to happen, and shouldn't happen. Women will treat men much kinder than men have treated women. Men will still be able to achieve what they want, as long as they try. Live as a god, or become a NEET.

Thanks, women.

>>5941619
>>5941622

The difference in way of thinking is exactly why we need more women in power.

>implying diversity isn't a necessary feature in a functioning society

>>>/pol/

>>5941709
The human mind is not exactly comparable to the color of clouds.

Women are far too great in number and far too diverse to generalize (as are men, ofcourse).

>>5941756

diversity is necessary, but this partisanship is not

women are digging their own graves, there is a reason anti depressant use among women 35-55 is 33%

Women and men have had gender roles for most of history. Women have been given the nurturing mother role, and men were the hunters. Wouldn't more women have similar traits as men if gender roles were more similar?

>>5941759

>too diverse to generalize

this is not true.


what I am stating is a biological statement, equivalent to saying "most humans have two eyes"

>>5941709
Shouldn't people just try and find what they enjoy themselves, as individuals?
I can imagine you talking to a woman who has job you consider too manly for her
>you don't enjoy this
>yeah i do
>yeah maybe, but not as much as a man would
>more than you would?
>I HAVE THESE CHARTS OF BRAIN STRUCTURES AND STATISTICS AND SHIT

>>5941770

but there is an original reason these roles were implemented in the first place?

where do you think stereotypes come from? there must be some truth to start

>>5940074
Selfish security centered sycophants.

>>5941771
The entire point of all this is that it isn't.

The biological attributes you are describing do not exist.

>>5940097
So, still none.

>>5941772

there are exceptions; we consider this abnormal or "different" for a reason (plus, how much enjoyment is simply contrarily motivated?)

exceptions prove the rule

>mfw feminism 'wins' and women are now forced to waste their best years working and paying taxes to prop up a welfare state overburdened by male NEETs

>>5941755
>everybody ignoring the truth

lol

/pol/ btfo

>>5941794
damn it feels good to be NEET.

>>5941781

this is wrong.

there are brain differences between men and women. fact.

men and women were not biologically meant to have the same roles. women naturally have children, their brains are adapted to this. fact.

we can want women to be like men, but biological difference is there. it is oppression to treat them otherwise. do you oppress women?

>womyn using women as trophies by denying them merit through affirmative action

>>5941788
Yeah, fine, but what implications does this have? It's not like feminists are rallying for more women in steel mills, even though they support their right to become steel workers if they so wish.

>>5941773
as with most animals, women were given the mothering role because they produce breast milk, and they don't have the same muscle mass as males. but in a modern context, women can be on the same level as men in strength and knowledge. so why shouldn't they be treated equally?

>>5941807
>women can be on the same level as men in strength

what?

>>5941799
women can do everything men can except for things that require the physical strength men have

in fact, women have succeeded men in every field so far except for STEM, and in STEM women are growing and growing

your argumentation consists of you claiming that women can't do what men can because they are biologically different, despite the world being filled with counter evidence

do you allow women to fufill tasks usually associated with men?

>>5941807
because their brains still retain these traits from when the mothering role was needed in society.

socially we have progressed; biologically, we have not.

until women evolve to become more like men, it is unfair and oppressive to expect them to act the same and take the same roles.

>>5941804

the implications point towards women having trouble mentally handling stressful positions the same way men can

this is a huge implication, and easily explains alot of the cripes men have about working women

>>5941818
>in fact, women have succeeded men in every field so far except for STEM, and in STEM women are growing and growing

This is not true. Almost every important intellectual in every single field was and is a male. The fact that gender/ethnic studies programs are near 100% female and thus women are getting more "degrees" means nothing.

>>5941817
the strongest male will always be stronger than the strongest female, but women can still gain enough muscle to be productive

>>5940036
it's because /pol/ got carpetbombed, so they're spending all their time on other boards.

>>5941825
This is not true.

In law, language, history, antropology, psychology, and many, many more fields women have succeeded men. Most of these women are young, and are not at the level of the men that graduated in the 50s yet.

>>5941819
>because their brains still retain these traits from when the mothering role was needed in society.
Imagine if child rearing was a communal and a familial investment when it comes to actual tradition rather than whatever fantasies you might've cooked up in your head.
Or if people were capable of adapting?

I'm not quite sure of the differences you're talking about, but wouldn't it be interesting if socialisation and environmental pressure would play a role in how people act?

Doubly, or perhaps even triply interesting would be if there was actual research done on the subject... One can only wonder...

>>5941825
>I'll just say that women only get degrees in stupid fields that i don't like

o shit nigga
women btfo

>5940088

>>5941818

they can

and look at the societal consequences.

>>5941819
you're right. women are made to biologically and physically take care of children. but in current times, women have the ability to take on male roles such as being a soldier and a writer, so why should men hold women as inferior just because they would all be sluts and moms if humans lacked self-awareness.

>>5941857
>and look at the societal consequences.
oh wow we're all dying omg if only these were medieval times

>>5941843

this is a good transhumanism topic

however my main point is that for the time being, until women can adapt biologically, there will be great societal upheaval as they attempt to act like males socially, yet remain females biologically (ex. feelings of entitlement)

>>5941867

please be respectful.

you're correct, but see >>5941869

>>5940722
lol someone made a thread about her and 3 or more dif dudes jumped in to say people only like her bc she's a black woman (and then wouldn't say what they've read or deny that they're teens mad about having to read Beloved)
when is hs winter break over

>>5941850
What hoops to jump through if you want the carrot.
But what if the carrot makes you sick with revulsion?

>>5940897
>replying seriously to /r9/ pasta
>being this dumb

>>5941940
Agreed

Its so fucking frustrating

>>5941536
a good post

also, if you're so obsessed with talking about/thinking about why women are so inferior to you it's because you have nothing else going for you that you can base your self esteem on other than your gender and are, in fact, the worthless one

>>5941838
No they haven't.

>>5941844
A degree is not an end in itself. Mark Zuckerberg does not have a degree. What women has changed the world like he has? Comparing "degrees earned" is meaningless.

BTW, this just showcases yet again the tendency of women to mistake the symbol for the essence. They are incapable of thinking on the highest levels that men are capable of reaching.

>>5941687
you are stupid

>>5941850
This is the kind of thing I would expect to see on a subreddit that reposts content from 9gag, please fuck off.

>>5941850
That is the worst advice I've ever seen. The people here don't need to be taking bullshit jobs to pay for girlfriend gifts, the fucked up people need therapy, self-improvement/reflection, and a path to self reliance through exercise and education. They don't need to be focused on a relationship.

>>5941850
>Advising misogynists how to get women
How does that benefit misogynists?
How does that benefit women?

>>5941755

>society favors women and disenfranchises the lowliest of men
>gee I wonder why women are doing so good

>>5941998
so, you mean 4chan.

>tfw your thread about books representing Rolf gets deleted
>this gets to stay up past the bump limit
t-thanks mods

>>5942070
cuckold detected

>>5942230
I know, right?

>WOMEN ARE DOING BETTER THAN MEN
>IT'S TOTALLY NOT BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT-MANDATED QUOTAS OR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WOMEN CAN SUCCEED ON THE SAME TERMS AS MEN, REALLY IT`S TRUE, STOP SNICKERING!

Just hilarious.

>>5942303
>Women are doing better than men

Is the best scholarship coming from women? Are the best books being written by women? Are the best films being directed by women? Are the most successful companies being founded by women?

>>5940582
The trolls are too obvious?

>>5940658
I don't know how people can be so well read and think posts like this are a good way of dealing with misogybabies.