/lit/ - Literature

Why do you want to read a novel about strong women?

>>6100650

Expand my perspective.

"Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded"

>>6100654

Defoe in general.

Often features characters which at first fall and them redeem themselves; redemption being a key theme in his works; Moll Flanders is a good example of this.

>>6100648
So you want a book about a decent housewife who does nothing out of the ordinary?

People don't write about that just like they don't write books about decent fathers working at the gas plant.

These /pol/ threads are getting more subtle though.

>>6100648
That sounds boring as fuck. There's a reason even women are getting sick of that stuff now, anon.

>>6100669

You're very confused.

>People don't write about that just like they don't write books about decent fathers working at the gas plant.

Yes they do. Decent fathers still overcome difficulties, adversity, and traumas.

Being of good moral character doesn't preclude one from experiencing tragedy and challenges.

>hurr /pol/

Maybe if you visted /pol/ you wouldn't be so obtuse and simple minded?

>>6100682
>There's a reason even women are getting sick of that stuff now, anon.

Women actually love that stuff. There's a huge fanbase for christian/wife style romance.

>>6100691
>Maybe if you visted /pol/ you wouldn't be so obtuse and simple minded?
TOP
OP
P
KEK
EK
K
>Strength from a woman comes from her humility, chastity, faith, role as a mother and caregiver, homemaker, supporting her man, teaching her children, etc.
Oh, does it now?

Solid bait here, OP. Solid bait.

>>6100691
>Yes they do. Decent fathers still overcome difficulties, adversity, and traumas.
Not any that are interesting to read about.

>Being of good moral character doesn't preclude one from experiencing tragedy and challenges.
It does preclude a character from being interesting though. You only find these uncomplicated humble but virtuous hero types in books for children and Disney movies.

>Maybe if you visted /pol/ you wouldn't be so obtuse and simple minded?
If I had never visited /pol/, how would I have recognised your /pol/ lingo? Who the fuck describes someone as "anti-child" outside of /pol/? Who else would want to request novels about the perfect dull but wholesome waifu?

>>6100710
>if a character isn't degenerate and evil he isn't an interesting hero

No. Adversity comes in many shapes and sizes. Being of poor moral character and having terrible judgment aren't the only ways to make a character interesting.


>If I had never visited /pol/

It shows from your lack of sophistication.

>>6100691
Have you considered sentimentalist literature? It seems to be exactly what you're looking for.

>>6100750
Characters without flaws who only encounter external adversity are pleb tier and one-dimensional. You should probably stick to children's books and video games.

>>6100756
>>6100654

I'm looking for modern/contemporary novels.
At least after the 1990s

>>6100762

>the only flaw a character can have is being morally degenerate

just stop typing.

>>6100764
Pic related is what you're looking for.

>>6100648
Boring wholesome American tier protestant values?

Pic related.

>>6100778
>>6100771

cucks will never learn

>>6100768
There is no human being who isn't "morally degenerate". Not even you.

>>6100771
>>6100778

christianity doesn't have a monopoly on what's good and right

>>6100782

funny, cuz the person in your gif proves you wrong.

>>6100786
Babies are natural degenerates. They just haven't learned to hide it yet.

>>6100784
They're the only ones creating entertainment cheesy enough to satisfy OP though.

>>6100786
You're mistaking incompetence for innocence. Children are at least as cruel and horrible as adults, they just can't do much with it because they're basically fat drunken midgets.

>>6100791

>babies are morally culpable

You should've started with the greeks...

>>6100798

see >>6100801

>>6100801
moral culpability has nothing to do with degeneracy.

Funny you should mention the greeks, I see you're learning the maymays. The greeks (all of them) practiced infanticide as contraception.

>>6100814
Hard to believe when performing even abortions is against the Hippocratic code.

>>6100814

an act won't 'degenerate' your moral standing if you aren't culpable for it. Duh.

>>6100798

You don't actually know anything about children at all do you?

ITT: Nobody mentions Flaubert because /lit/ doesn't read.

>>6100832
>>6100834

did you guys like these? what did u think

>>6100801

The Spartans killed babies with perceived physical flaws.

Jessica from Dune, I suppose

The bible was written by two women.

>>6100833

Bovary is about a female character in the opposite spectrum of what OP asked for.

>>6100648
>Strength from a woman comes from her humility, chastity, faith, role as a mother and caregiver, homemaker, supporting her man, teaching her children, etc.

[citation needed]


>Any books like this?

The Frozen novelization.

>>6100848
>[citation needed]

citation is OP just said it. And he's right.

Mrs. Dalloway. All she wants to do is throw a party and doesn't give a shit when she's criticized for it.

>>6100873
All those things are liabilities in the real world.

>>6100848
If you're a girl, please shut the fuck up. If you're not, please shut the fuck up.

>>6100653
>expand my perspective
>only wants to read about a specific type of woman that you already like

>>6100801
>adults are morally culpable

you shouldn't have skipped the sophists

>>6100890
this is exactly what you want OP

>>6100648
This is such a silly post.

Why didn't you just ask for interesting women characters that aren't cliches?

>>6100903

this isn't your echochamber, so stop being such a resenful slave
>"i can't get laid, so no one else should either or ur a degenerate"

>>6101049
because he doesn't want interesting female characters, he wants victorian housewives who are obedient and not 'degenerate'

>>6101049
Because that wouldn't fit his agenda.

Since when does /lit/ get so menstrual at the mere mention of traditional female virtues/roles? Way to fulfil the stereotype /pol/ has of us as american liberal third-wave feminists. All those things op listed are admirable and quickly disappearing; why on earth would you consider them boring and stuffy?

>>6101168
Because why is promiscuity a bad thing for women but not for men? Why is ambition a bad thing for women but not for men?

>>6101168
We're literature. Even those of us who aren't leftists tend to have an existentialist streak, so of course we're put off by ideology which allowed no other definition for onself for thousands of years.

Hey, I have no problem with women who want to be homemakers. I wouldn't want to be one, but I have no issue with it. But when someone says strength for a woman comes exclusively from being a humble maid, cook and babysitter, I tend to disagree.

>>6101180
Who says promiscuity is not a bad thing for men? Even if you don't think it is a bad thing for men, the idea that it's undesirable for women but ok for men is a pretty natural response that's been part of human culture for nearly all all existence; criticising it doesn't represent some revelatory new standard of morality.
And who the hell equates ambition with a salary?

>>6101168

>Way to fulfil the stereotype /pol/ has of us as american liberal third-wave feminists

Still better than the inept virgin edgelords over there.

>>6101182
>But when someone says strength for a woman comes exclusively from being a humble maid, cook and babysitter, I tend to disagree.
OP didn't say that. The problem is things like humility, chastity, faith, role as a mother and caregiver etc which OP did mention are usually frowned upon nowdays, and in their place we hold up in esteem the opposites.
And being a leftist doesn't mean holding 'liberal' social attitudes.

>>6101205

>the idea that it's undesirable for women but ok for men is a pretty natural response that's been part of human culture

Yeah, an irrational human response derrived from ressentiment and powerlust.

>>6101217
>OP didn't say that

He did. Read the OP again.

>>6101220
...or the value of certain forms of behaviour. Not everything is a grand conspiracy to keep women down.

>>6101234

Ressentiment isn't a conspiracy, anon. It's a primitive human mechanism.

>>6101168
>mere mention

More like /pol/ bait posting.

>calling women who don't have children "anti-child"

shigeridoo

>>6100648
>The Mists of Avalon
>The Earthsea series

>>6101220
Traditionally though, the fruits of male promiscuity wouldn't be a burden on the household, while that of a woman would.

Which is a pretty good reason to find the latter worse.

>>6101224
>Strength from a woman comes from her humility, chastity, faith, role as a mother and caregiver, homemaker, supporting her man, teaching her children, etc.
>But when someone says strength for a woman comes exclusively from being a humble maid, cook and babysitter
OP talked about upholding certain ideals, the responsibility towards children and spouse, and the role and contribution to the family.
The other anon turned it all to only jobs and professions.

>>6101244
>male promiscuity wouldn't be a burden on the household

How come?

>>6100648
OP: read "Four Ways to Forgiveness".

>>6101240
This is the worse aspect: attributing anything that you might nor agree with to /pol/. I've noticed a vast increase of this technique over the last 6 months or so. It's the equivalent of /pol/ responding to any criticism with GOOD GOY.

>>6101236
But the value of those forms of behaviour are not born from resentment, now are they?

>>6101247
He said that he doesn't mean career oriented or being a great warrior, etc. It's pretty clear this was meant in contrast with being a housekeeper.

>>6101244
>male promiscuity not a burden
>potentially more mouths to feed
>potentially angry murderous cucks
>distraction from "provider" tasks
Yeah, ok

That whore wasn't married

And she was a witch

Utterly degenerate!

>>6101275
How utterly spontaneous and random you are!

>>6101270
That extra mouth to feed was another pair of hands which increased labour productivity, not a distraction from tasks.

>>6101257
Because it would be some random woman down the way that would be pregnant, obviously.

>>6101270
The point is that male promiscuity did not lead to more mouths to feed because you can just abandon the bitch and deny everything.

>>6101294
Ah, so we are assuming complete male degeneracy, not just promiscuity.
Also:
>hell hath no fury like a woman scorned
Plus
>angry murderous bastards

>>6101220
>irrational
No, it's pretty rational.

>Strength from a woman comes from being The Angel in the House

poor virginia woolf

>>6101303
>so we are assuming complete male degeneracy
No one said dumping a woman and her child was a class move, just that it was possible to abandon them and thus not be forced to keep them within the family.

Also the idea of roves of bastards and scorned women tracking down ex-lovers and participating in mass vengeance is, I'm sure you'd agree, pretty fantastic. Both child and mother had larger concerns, such as how to survive.

>>6101303
A woman would be disowned for being a filthy slut, not avenged by white knight family members.

>>6100648
Jane Eyre

>>6100648
>Strength from a woman comes from her humility, chastity, faith, role as a mother and caregiver, homemaker, supporting her man, teaching her children, etc.
Oh yeah, you'd have to be real fucking strong to deal with all this bullshit that's been forced upon you and expected of you since birth, simply because you have boobs and a vagina. I really don't know how women can deal being assigned these particular roles without going insane. I'd have snapped and pumped lead into everyone I knew and then demap at the moment I'd be able to formulate my own thoughts.

>>6101476
>really don't know how women can deal being assigned these particular roles without going insane. I'd have snapped and pumped lead into everyone I knew
Because they're little bitches, really.

Systematic oppression only works against people who allow themselves to be oppressed.

>>6101490
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

>>6101490
>Systematic oppression only works against people who allow themselves to be oppressed.
Or, you know, people who have been oppressed so long and with such intensity that they don't know any better.

>>6101495
Women were also largely seperated from each other, they had a master directly over them from father to husaband. The idea of female solidarity wasn't possible until relatively recently. And really even then women didn't fully develop it until the Feminine Mystique came out and women realized they all felt the same way; before that, women generally felt like something was just wrong with them for not liking their role, they didn't realize a lot of women hated their role

>>6101476
look at this faggot

>>6101501
this goes for both sexes. Men had masters too.

>>6101494
Justice doesn't come into it. All I'm saying is, they deal with it because they are unable or unwilling to do something about it. A rabbit gets eaten because it's not fast enough to flee. A woman gets oppressed because she isn't capable of ending her own oppressing.

>>6101495
Allowing yourself to be oppressed is allowing yourself to be oppressed. Doesn't matter which excuse is brought up for it.

>>6101520
No that they lived in the same house with, and men spent time with large groups of men for athletic events, politics, drinking, and so on. Women were largely confined to the home.

>>6101530
and it was good

Jesus Christ, why do mods not exist

>>6101180

Why is it so hard to grasp that, since men and women are different, they are judged differently as well? Some traits are attractive for one gender and unattractive for the other. Having lots of sexual partners make a man seem more successful and also more attractive in the eyes of women, while fucking around as a girl will rightfully get you labeled as a filthy slut.
Same goes for dominance, agression, certain physical traits (having a strong, muscular body for example), etc. Good for men, extremely unattractive ("manly") on a woman.

>>6101267

Yes, they are. That's what "derrived from ressentiment" means.

>>6101309
There's nothing rational in condeming disease-free promiscuity in an evolved society.

>>6101673
>There's nothing rational in condeming disease-free promiscuity in an evolved society.
That's not what was said, but since you bring it up, the condemnation of disease-free promiscuity in an 'evolved' (that's a good one) society is moral based ie it is seen as immoral. Defending promiscuity can not draw on any moral defence, nor is it based on rationality. If anything it is irrational, since it is based purely on physical gratification.

>>6101619
It is mind boggling how a person can possibly argue philosophy, constructs, history of morals etc one second and fail to do anything but repeat the commonplace of his time when the subject is women - and say these are justified without a second tought.

>>6101619
Well said. It really isn't a difficult issue to wrap your head around.

>>6101706
>justifying value judgements

>>6101673
>Yes, they are. That's what "derrived from ressentiment" means.
Resentment does not give rise to the values of humility, modesty etc, otherwise they would not be pursued by men.

>>6101704
what "moral" standard are you basing this on precisely

>>6101619
>Good for men, extremely unattractive ("manly") on a woman.
For who?
>desperation and fetishes don't exist.

>>6101733
Of course it does. With humility and modest valued, you can feel superior to people who aren't modest or humble. Humility and modest as praised don't come from those being seen as good things, they come from hating on their opposites.

>>6101739
>Humility and modest as praised don't come from those being seen as good things, they come from hating on their opposites.
Speak for yourself.

>>6101735
The one that views self-restrain and modesty as admirable and hedonism and lack of control as unadmirable.

>>6101750
I'm talking about the origin of them as meme values, not how you justify them as values to yourself. Similarly, being poor as a good thing doesn't occur because poor is seen as positive, but as a reaction because being rich is seen as negative. Christ's victimhood as positive has to do with seeing strength and power as negative. Idea of chastity has to do with seeing sex as negative. These are all values based on ressentiment rather than sentiment, they are reactionary values based on doing the opposite of what is resented.

>>6100863
This is good rec, anon. :^ )

>>6101759
so, shouldn't you be demonstrating your admirable self-restraint by mortifying your flesh instead of posting on 4chan right now?

what purpose does this self-restraint serve? why apply that principle in relation to women and their sex lives instead of innumerable other things?

>>6100669
>this thread
>subtle

>>6100648

Japanese media excels at this.

Go watch Prinicess Mononoke or any number of Ghibi films. Read Nausicaa manga. Even games like Final fantasy depict strong women (such as Terra from FF6)

>>6101808
Agreed.
Wolf Children was fascist trash.

>>6101180
Ambition makes her neglect her children and promiscuity means a few things, for example that the child may not be yours, that she has STD and that she picks bad sexual partners. It also doesn't affect her personalliy in any positive way.

>>6101819
>Ambition makes her children adapt to be independant and self-sufficient

>the child may not be yours,
legally or what?


>and that she picks bad sexual partners.
being rich is a bad thing?

>>6101828
>Ambition makes her children adapt to be independant and self-sufficient
You do know that children don't work that way?
>legally or what?
As in the child you raise isn't the one you made because alongside of you she is fucking 5 other guys. Understand?
>being rich is a bad thing?
How is being rich tied to picking bad sexual partners?

>>6101794
>so, shouldn't you be demonstrating your admirable self-restraint by mortifying your flesh instead of posting on 4chan right now?
Was this humour or did you honestly think there was any relevance? There really isn't any reason to get defensive at the mention of things like self-restraint, or to take it as a sign of sanctimoniousness.
>why apply that principle in relation to women
That should be obvious
>what purpose does this self-restraint serve?
It's traditionally been a sign of good character, strength etc, and a way to avoid unpleasent habits
>and their sex lives instead of innumerable other things?
Who says I or other people don't?

>>6101845
>That should be obvious
Oh, so you don't have an argument. Cool.

>It's traditionally been a sign of good character, strength etc, and a way to avoid unpleasent habits
You're not answering my question. Couldn't any otherwise pointless display of self-denial become a moral duty by your logic? So, why did you choose this one to draw the line in the sand at? Why are you enjoying yourself shitposting here instead of whipping yourself? What, did you think I wasn't being literal?

You filthy e-slut.

>>6101180
promiscuity or ambition are both bad for men and women

>>6101335
what's so bad about being an angel?

>>6101673
>contemporary western society
>evolved

have you ever been to a native american powwow?

>>6100648
The Stepford Wives
Rosemary's Baby

>>6101762
So power, money, and sex are the end of the road, anon?

I hope you have an enjoyable life

>>6101927

There is no end to the road, that's what your archaic mentality doesn't let you understand.

>>6101961
time is a circle?

>>6101979

No. It's continuous.

>>6101984
What do you mean?

>>6101990

It doesn't end. It can't. It's impossible for it to.

>morality
>good moral values
>traditional moral values

who ya gonna call? max stirner!
seriously fuck this spook bullshit

>>6100648
The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck

It's about missionaries in China. I read it a long time ago, but I remember one of the female characters taking care of cholera patients, which embodies the kind of nurturing strength you're talking about.

>>6101524
Let me get this straight: are you saying that because women are unable or unwilling to end their own oppression, that therefore they somehow deserve it? Because then I'm going to have to call bullshit.

Domination, in essence, is nothing but the symbolically-mediated complicity between dominators and dominated, but that immediately rules out the possibility of morally assessing the situation. Blame becomes pointless when you not only discover a system of oppression, but realize that it does not give a single fuck about you at all; only strategies and tactics (and their effects) are relevant when attempting to destroy any system of oppression.

>>6102014
Amen.

>>6102003
So it's infinite, but not looping?

>>6102068

poltrolling is the easiest way to get lit's knickers in a pinch because this place is full of women and cuck's who cant stand the slightest implication of belief in traditional values.

I'm probably triggering someone just by saying "traditional values"


These threads are always hilarious though, because nobody can even make a recommendation despite women only ever being written as "virgins or whores" nobody can supply an example of the former.

well, none of you read so its not surprising anyways.

>>6102085

Yes.

>>6102095

/pol/ os far easier to troll since they're whole life is just one perpetual trigger. All it takes is the slight implication that women aren't property.

>>6102110

I've never been there, but i can only imagine its like every race thread on /int/ but worse, and all the time.

>hurr durr what country are you? okay here is a guy from a race im assuming you don't like fucking a girl from your country. durrr

yall niggas need jesus smh.

Can we all agree that /pol/ is ruining every board on 4chan?

>>6102110
Not really. /lit/ is far more sensitive and touchy than /pol/, if you ask me. they at least try and argue with their boogeymans (commies, leftists), while /lit/ activates retard mode at the sight of anything resembling traditional/conservative thinking, pulling the "go back to /pol/" card and posting unnecessary shit like >>6102165.

>>6101501
This is feminist historical revisionism at its finest.

>>6102185
Pretty much.
Threre is some kind of /pol/ trigger here, whenever someone has a conservative view on something many get triggered and shut down and scream /pol/.
That being said most stuff on /pol/ is really dumb, but good for shitposting.

>>6101501
This is nonsense, women were much more of a collective then, especially in more rural, conservative communities than they are now.
Also pure ideology, no maymays included.

>>6102185
>they at least try and argue with their boogeymans
>Good Goy!
>cuck!
>Degenerate!
>De Jewz!
>"arguing"

>>6101808
Yes. "Strong" (i.e. good) female characters are the norm in Japanese media, and there's nothing remarkable about them at all. In the West however (or America, really), "strong female characters" are a never-ending source of controversy. It's especially bad in video games.

Rather ironic considering that America is supposed to be a bastion of progressive values and feminism while Japan is supposed to be conservative and patriarchal.

>>6100648
>Strength from a woman comes from her humility, chastity, faith, role as a mother and caregiver, homemaker, supporting her man, teaching her children, etc.


I smell a redpill-fag

>>6102243
We smell the cheese out of your poorly washed tumblrina vagina

>>6102185

>shouting boogeymans
>trying to argue

>implying there's anything wrong with telling /pol/ to fuck off

Telling those who don't belong to fuck off is not being "sensitive". It's just the reverse of being gullible.

>>6102255
I like how this whole thing has been polarized to the point where anything less than balls-to-the-wall hyper-misogyny and ultra-conservatism (or somebody's idea of conservatism) means you're a "tumblrina" and an "SJW" who is clearly "triggered." Thanks a lot America.

>>6102269
I didn't know progreshits were the de facto overlords of /lit/. Thanks for the heads up.

Also, OP was totally on-topic and talking literature. Your 'not gullible' fellows were the ones who overreacted.

>>6102275
thankfully it's mostly sad corners of the internet where unlikable virgin 10-25 yo boys like to hang out
99.99% of america and like 90% of tumblr don't know what a 'tumblerina' is

>>6102255
Jeanne D'Arc
Marie Curie
Angela fucking Merkel for all I care

None of them fulfill any of the above traits, or at least they're not what they are known for. They not strong women?

>>6102233
>Japan is supposed to be conservative and patriarchal
I believe (some) anime is an exception. You can't directly compare such different cultures. There's some nasty sexism in some occupations in Japan, and sexual objectification is fucking rampant (see: cheap seasonal harem shit).

I have some hypothesis that since Japanese culture is so introverted and passive-aggressive, you have this immense split between those who ridiculously objectify in anime, and those who make funny cutesy anime with admirable female characters. (Then again I might just be dreaming in my yellow fever because even most of the "cute girls doing cute things" shows usually end up sexualizing in some way and gratifying male audiences even if purely with "cuteness".)

>>6102282
>progreshits
Look at this intellectual cultural critique of left-wing politics. How admirable!

>>6102282
it's clearly a b8 thread
lit with female protagonists who aren't career women bitches of whatever Reagan stereotypes aren't exactly obscure
see: almost all books pre 1970 and most after

>>6102269
>op post is on topic
>but expresses a view certain people don't
>thread devolves into shit posting, still not a single recommendation
>somehow this is pol

rofl. Hate irrationally all you like in the general sense, but its impossible to actually think /lit/ is being shit up by /pol/

when /pol/ actually was here they had some of the only new and active discussions of books i've seen in a long time.

Lets be real, /lit/ is where but hurt faggots who dont fit in the rest of 4chan but cant hanf out on reddit come to feel safe and coddled.

You are a prime example of this. but you don't even realize that you, and people like you are the real problem with the board.

>>6101961

For many people, materialism and self-idolatry ARE the end of the road. If you believe what I think I understand you are asserting, then you should shun these illusory values which serve to snare people and prevent both the individual and the species from advancing to their fullest potential.

>>6102301
none of this makes sense
and /pol/ does shit up lit bc they've never actually read a book and just come here to jerk each other off or annoy people so they can be all /lit/ is so sjw
See: every thread that shits on X, but then the person is totally silent when asked to name books that they like that aren't X or are better than X

here's a suggestion: Daisy Miller, Pamela
enjoy

>>6102320
>>6102301

oh and pamela was suggested way in the second post
fuck off, you can't even make your bs consistent within a thread, people did take the op seriously and give helpful recomendations

>>6102292
>sexual objectification
>harem shit

Harem has nothing to do with sexual objectification, it's simple wish fulfillment

>>6102301
>when /pol/ actually was here they had some of the only new and active discussions of books i've seen in a long time.

Perceptual bias is a hell of a drug.

>>6102292

Sometimes something being cute is enough.

I think the panty shots are more on the artists end of decision making TBH.

>>6102358
The mein kampf read was the most on topic and polite thread i've seen on /lit/ in years.

But think whatever you like.

>>6102372
>But think whatever you like.

Seems to be working out for you.

Read snow country

>>6102378
Happily show me otherwise.

I'm not claiming that every thread about anything sex isn't full of ham fisted bullshit, I'm claiming the actual /pol/ threads from when /pol/ was in there shitter were good threads.

>>6102301
You're the definition of gullibility, if you're not from /pol/ yourself.
What would you think of someone making a thread asking for strong black characters who are virtuous hard-working slaves loyal to their master?

>>6102351
Generally the girls in cheap seasonal harem tend to be two-dimensional stereotypes who get in conveniently sexual situations all the time and have their personality defined entirely through their connection to the self-insert main character. They are, more or less, sexual objects, or "romantic objects" at minimum; they are objects existing solely to fulfill wishes, as you say.

>>6102361
>panty shots
That reminds me, damn, I'd really love to read some proper radfem analysis of Yozakura Quartet. I absolutely fucking love the show but can't be sure about the mentality of the author sometimes, as in whether he does or doesn't glorify female sexual objectification. I think in some ways he does, but then he also gives the characters some very interesting personalities and makes them overall lovely, so perhaps he's just a cute pervert full of love.

>>6102285
The flipside is that if you aren't a feminist sockpuppet who enjoys getting pegged, you must be a male oppressor shitlord rapist who wants to set back women's rights a thousand years. Thanks America.

>>6102292
"Sexual objectification" isn't a real thing, and anime characters aren't even real people. What most Westerners also don't know is that Japanese women participate in that culture too. They make pornographic and erotic manga of all sorts, they design sexy female characters and do all kinds of things in the anime industry.

There also is no such thing as seasonal anime. That's because all anime is seasonal. The year is divided into seasons. I don't know where this popular idea of seasonal anime comes from.

>I have some hypothesis that since Japanese culture is so introverted and passive-aggressive, you have this immense split between those who ridiculously objectify in anime, and those who make funny cutesy anime with admirable female characters.
The truth is that sexual content just isn't a big deal to the Japanese like it is to Westerners. They aren't feminists, they aren't prudes, they don't have Western complexes about the issue, they don't relentlessly politicize and over-analyze things and associate everything with reality ("Is this misogynistic?! How does this represent women?! Does this provide role models for girls (even though our target audience is males and we air this shit at 1 AM)?!").

>Even most of the "cute girls doing cute things" shows usually end up sexualizing in some way and gratifying male audiences even if purely with "cuteness".
It is impossible to not "sexualize." No matter how cutesy and innocent the characters are, people will find them sexually attractive and then create pornographic parodies of the work and distribute it at Comiket to a crowd of 500,000 people (where, meanwhile, women are doing the exact same thing to male characters). Of course, the attraction people have towards these characters is not purely or even primarily sexual, but of course that's the only thing you people ever focus on, and then project that focus onto others.

From what I hear, K-On was popular with girls (the anime was also produced mostly by women). Also, Hidamari Sketch and Yuru Yuri are made by women.

>>6102402
>Generally the girls in cheap seasonal harem tend to be two-dimensional stereotypes
the same way when you read the online bios of the "in" boybands they're all out of a stock pile of stereotypes
>who get in conveniently sexual situations all the time and have their personality defined entirely through their connection to the self-insert main character.
Have you seen Twilight?
>They are, more or less, sexual objects, or "romantic objects" at minimum; they are objects existing solely to fulfill wishes, as you say.
Because that's the point. It isn't an misoginistic conspiracy agaisnt women, it just what the viewer wants. A lazy fantasy where he gets laid in any scenario.

>>6100650
Were you actually digging into his motivations or confused as to why anyone would read a book with a strong female character?

>>6102402
>Generally the girls in cheap seasonal harem tend to be two-dimensional stereotypes who get in conveniently sexual situations all the time and have their personality defined entirely through their connection to the self-insert main character.
How very shocking that a harem comedy probably doesn't have complex, deep characters with rich backgrounds and their own intricate stories separate from the main character. And why should it? To satisfy some arbitrary feminist agenda that nobody in Japan cares about? Also, has it occured to you that maybe you're the one reducing these characters to objects and assuming that of course they must be "two-dimensional stereotypes" of no consequence?

>I absolutely fucking love the show but can't be sure about the mentality of the author sometimes, as in whether he does or doesn't glorify female sexual objectification.
He almost certainly doesn't even think about those things, and this is just you projecting your own political ideas.

>>6102427
>A lazy fantasy where he gets laid in any scenario.
Not a whole lot of getting laid going on in harem anime (sex in general is extremely rare in anime, almost never happens), and usually there's some kind of primary love interest who, we assume, he will eventually end up with (even if the story never gets to that point).