/lit/ - Literature

Did you grow up with a mother? Was she loving?

Really, all you need to do is socialize with more people and be around more women

Why? Everything Schopenhauer said is true.

>>6471361

Yes. She was loving but overbearing.

I personally got a huge kick in the right direction by reading Judith Butler. The IEP might be easier than reading the original.
Not sure what else to read. Crossdressing is a more difficult, but very effective way to overcome your stuff.
Derrida has some interesting comments on Nietzsche's misogyny, passing through Heidegger.

The gender studies section of my uni's library had a really nice anthology called Masculine / feminine that also dealt with Nietzsche's and Freud's misogyny.

A really useful thing is to continuously remember that your perception of the limited to the confines of your identity, and the faculty of imagination also has its limits - there are things you just haven't experienced, and therefore can't evaluate.

Start with he Romans. Fathers of feminism.

>>6471361

Not op but I'm kind of in the same boat as him.

My relationship with my mom was/is complex. She was extremely affectionate and always said she loved me, but I also got the sense that she didn't really 'know' me, if that makes any sense. I got the feeling sometimes that she loved 'her child' not 'me' per se. Well, maybe not absolutely, there were some hints of real compassion, but because she didn't "get" me, it always missed the mark. I'll never forget the time my 8th grade teacher told mom I was being bullied and she reacted with such incredulity, she said I was "thick skinned". But I'm not thick skinned at all, I'm ridiculously THIN skinned, how could someone who knows me not see that? Its like she was projecting some ideal on to me

>>6471508
How old are you jesus misogonysts are the BIGGEST babies

>>6471437
Overbearing can definitely stifle your own perceptions of women from youth, but the bigger question I was directing towards is this: how can a man who since day one has been nurtured, cared for, and raised by a woman, dad or no dad, develop any sort of true misogynistic hatred? Contempt for your own frustrations with the relationship dynamics is not the same as contempt for the whole gender.

read the fucking sticky

>>6471559
lel

>>6471508
Sorry thin skinned bro, I don't see how this explains anything at all. Of course your mother does this shit. You will always behave completely differently in the privacy of your own home then when you are in a classroom. If you think you've been touched by the misogyny fairy then it's because of the bullying and the shitty high school years in general, not some subtle problem in dealing with your mom.

>>6471562
It's not hatred but an understanding of her incompetence. Eventually you come to resent her for it. It becomes misogyny when you starts to see these traits in every woman you encounter.

SCUM Manifesto :^)

Women are capable of everything men are, but their culture of anti-masculinity prevents them from ever becoming respectable or intellectuals. Only few manage to break out of the housewife model years of misogyny has molded for them because they are becoming increasingly reluctant to ever drop their wretched and anti-intellectual feminity.

Women are meant to make babies, a debilitating and painful process. More importantly it makes them incredibly vulnerable and dependent, so they naturally group-think and conform.

Men are meant to trick them into it. We're smarter, stronger, and individualistic. Philosophy is ontological violence and men will always be better at it.

Misogyny isn't bad in moderation. It becomes problematic when it is turned into an ideological foundation for oppression and cruelty.

>>6471606
I don't think it necessarily cultivates into misogyny, anymore than a woman's incompetence in raising men translates into other areas of life. A true misogynist sees no worth nor can conceive of a positive relationship with a woman, and for this to manifest permanently after a string of fail relationships is actually rather rare. Most simply wish to seek improvement in their own life to achieve a successful companionship.

You read both of those authors wrong if you only got as far as misogyny not misanthropy.

>>6471316
Read this. It'll make you feel better about yourself.

>>6471670
This. how would a prideful misogynist like Nietzsche allow his image rendered like so? Men pulling the carts for women under a whip of flowers.

>>6471688
How? He wanted to bang her really bad. We've all done crazy things for love.

>>6471688
Is this why he identified with the horse?

>>6471688
He's secretly a horse

>>6471691
True, and it was sincere love he was experiencing. He valued her and wished the feelings to be mutual, this doesn't match up with the proposed sociopath seeking a marriage certificate to promote his status.

>>6471361
Not op, but I was raised by my single mother. My relationship with her has always been turbulence, and maybe because of that, I always tried to keep a certain distance consciously or subconsciously. On some degree I felt a tremendous amount of spouse emotion responsibilities was transferred upon me after my parents' divorce. She never met anyone again, and refuse to do so. I know she loves me very much, but she loves me as a child, or as some one she thinks I am, or should be, or was, I'm none of any of those she proclaim but she's blinded by some invisible force. I don't think that my experience would make me a misogynist, but it certainly shed lights on the overwhelming emotions of women and how they are driven by them uncontrollably, unable to learn and logically accept new things.

>>6471688
I feel so bad for Nietzsche in this picture
>H-hey, Nietschze can have fun too. Its like I'm your slave or something. But, you know, just as a joke, hah hah. Its not like I want your love or anything.

>>6471926
Not to mention the whole downfall of the friendship between the three soon after.

>>6471984
Also being let down by his hero Wagner and feeling like an untermensch who could never write music as good as him and then being hospitalized after realizing his life's philosophy was wrong during the horse incident and then having internet users in the future pity him.

>>6472018
>realizing his life's philosophy was wrong during the horse incident

It probably had more to due with his brain disintegrating. He had plenty more ambition in furthering his philosophy, but he just broke.

>>6472018

Dude, what?

There is literally no evidence to support this claim.

>>6471316
Read pic related :^)

>>6472221
Why would you get tired of that? It's like you don't like it when she makes you put on the dress and calls you Naughty Bess.

>>6471316

Read female authors.

Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte are a good start, if you still feel too sexist go for Toni Morrison. If you look her up, you'll only hate her subconsciously, just read her books. The Bluest Eye changed the way I thought about how women look at themselves. Emily Bronte isn't AWFUL, but she's better known as being the more fuckable of the Bronte sisters, who are essentially a 19th century /lit/ wet dream.

>>6472221
He is the one to blame there, letting his mind be ruled by spooks.

>>6472245
You have terrible taste. I'm sure it's nice you like women, but, you obviously hate books, so, kindly leave.

>>6472221
Alpha as fuck

>>6472249
>not liking jane austen

the knee-jerk contrarianism never ends

>>6472254
How can you type when you're brain dead? Driving an ice pick through her work is a less inane waste of time than reading it if you're looking for something to do after you leave.

>>6472249

This is a joke right? Have you read Austen? Or Bronte for the matter?

It depends on what kind you're looking for, exactly? Because they don't all tend to agree.

Some even are far right, and defend themselves from the popular leftist conceptions. But for the most part, they're nuts.

I mean, I would go with Angela Davis, Anuradha Ghandy, Judith Butler, Carol Stabile, Susan Sontag, bell hooks, and Assata Shakur.

But given where we are, I doubt you'll gain much from reading Feminist literature than could change your mind about its merit, I'm assuming.

>>6472245

Also, this anon. Read poets and authors who are women, perhaps.

>>6472271
...the Brontes I think you mean.

>>6471316


Donna Haraway is pretty interesting but her writing is at times obfuscating post modern bullshit.

I read this book on Hypatia she was pretty intense.

Simone De Beauvoir is pretty fucking incredible. The Second Sex is a must.

The Subjugation of Women by John Stuart Mills is good.

Afraid I don't know much about feminist lit in regards to fiction or novels and shit.

>>6472267

Look, I'm with the other guy. Her works contain both significant skill as well as literary merit. She is an excellent wrtier from a time period of excellent writing. Her stories are complex multi-faceted and multifsarious, and the underlying messages of both cultural revelation and examination of human courtship from the female perspective are otherwise invaluable.


Where are you going with this?

>>6472286

>reading post-modernsim
>ever

You're otherwise good, Simone De Beauvoir is top tier.

>>6472289
She reads like Lady Caroline Lamb if she hadn't met Byron.

>>6472285

I meant specifically Bronte and wanted to see with which name he responded, or if he knew both. If he knew less about the authors than I did, I would be advantaged. Shhhh...

>>6472301
You're hoping you're not talking to someone who has read the things you claim to like. Think about that for a little while.

Is Virginia Wolfe actually any good, or just extolled for being a chick? I've never read any literary fiction authored by a woman before.

>>6472298

You mean like a person who isn't addicted to dick? Weird. It's almost like she isn't addicted to dick.

>>6472309
Like I said, if she hadn't met Byron.

>>6472278
Shameless YKK product placement

>>6472307
No she's seriously good. Read Orlando, she could have written some of your favourite greentexts about turning into a chick.

>>6472306

If he'd read them, he probably wouldn't be arguing so vehemently against them. I would be willing to bet that you've read less than 10 books grand total that you truly hate. Hate of a thing usually implies ignorance of it, and this I suspect to be the case. If he hasn't read her, he hasn't read her. This is something I endeavored to find out and a fault for which my consolation prize is argumentative advantage. Shhhhh... You're ruining the subterfuge.

>>6472328
You know we're all grills here, right? And some of us can even read. Do they plug wires into the bits of brain tissue which aren't affected so you can like still type but not breathe by yourself, or is an nurse interpreting for you?

>>6472307
>>6472324

Also the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen. Simone De Beuvoir, and The Subjugation of Women by John Stuart Mills. I know these are borrowed from above posts, but I'm saying them again so that they gain notoriety.

>Pic kinda related, Jean Paul Sartre and Simone De Beauvoir. She wanted his philosophical phallus.

>>6472346

Does this post have an argument or a point?

>>6472357
Never read Simone de Beauvoir's fiction. You'll promote her less. :^)

>>6472380

>Reading Philosopher's fiction.
It's a pretty well known fact that they (they being the active philosophoical community, past and present) can't write for shite. Your read them for the ideas. Kierkegaard isn't winning any awards for his prose, neither is Kant. Still worth the read.

That's lie saying you should read Phillip K. Dick's philosophical stuff. Don't.

>>6472377
I think you've read more blurbs about these writers you are claim are good than you've actually read of their works, and you may think your opinion of good authors is a socially valuable one, a thought which I vehemently disagree will have any social benefit beside you turning into a smug little frog princess.

Nice dubs though, now go drown in a well and take your book collection with you.

>>6472403
Okay, so they're more like romans à clef than fiction, but seriously keep going with the name dropping.

>>6472245
Which Austen would you recommend to start?

>>6471620
fuck. that.

>>6472425

Pride and Prejudice, but that's only because I myself am an INTJ and identify with her Darcy character.

>>6472418

Too prolific for you? I believe this would be the time to employ the phrase "umadbro?"

y u mad though? u mad? Ass mad? Colon confused? gastrointestinally guttered?

>>6472404

Selling me such a future as that of the Underground Man. I could dream. I've read both the books and the blurbs. That doesn't make the blurbs incorrect. Just to avoid more name dropping, let's say I particularly enjoyed tha way Austen built the framework of her piece in the style of small moments and large confessions, similar in style to Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo. Specifically, in that the conversations between herself and Darcy, the rage and on some level revenge, built into a sweet thing. In Monte Cristo's case the downfall of his enemies, but in Whathernames' case, love.

If you give me a week an half of a fuck, I'll write you an essay on the subject.

>>6472018
The horse thing isn't true, it's probably just someone retroactively trying to moralize him.

I think it would be very poetic too but stop believing in obvious falsehoods just because they're romantic

>>6472267
Nabokov and Bloom can't be wrong

>>6472473

Hey, I like the Napoleonic Wars.

>>6472357
Beauvoir and Sarte were the the biggest hack frogs in existence

>>6472467
>Colon confused? gastrointestinally guttered?
You may enjoy Simone de Beauvoir's fiction in your private moments; it'll be our dirty little secret, sister.

Dumas' Count is kind of weak for me, especially compared to Reine Margot for women, or the Three Musketeers for pastiche. Even his son writes better women than Austen ever could, and they were dying whores.

>>6472478

Yeah, but they chose to be hack frogs. They had the radical freedom to be hack frogs. And Hack frogs, sitting in a cafe and enjoying a cup of coffee are just as happy as you or me. Quite possibly more so. Their names will live longer than yours.

>>6472485

Reine Margot as a role model for women you mean? I was using the comparison for the framework of the novel, not direct character comparison, though in retrospect it's not impossible to put the two in the same room. Three Musketeers had 'strong' woman for the primary antagonist in Atho's wife Whatshername 2 electric boogaloo, but she ultimately carries off the female as an overly emotional pedestal character, only to be approached, conquered and fought against. The same is true for all other women in the book, from the random woman Porthos seduces for his arms or the scene in which D'Artagnan conquers Athos' wife. They're onjectives, not people. Austen and Bronte's works have them as people, because they are people. Kinda weird too, I felt Dumas did a better job with the female sex in Monte Cristo than he did in The Three Musketeers.

Which came first historically, do you know?

>>6472513

Also, I should clarify as you seem to be calling me 'sister'. I'm a white cis-gendered male.

>>6472513
>Reine Margot as a role model for women you mean? I was using the comparison for the framework of the novel, not direct character comparison, though in retrospect it's not impossible to put the two in the same room.
I was thinking of Catherine, and not as a role model. Women don't have to be role models to be well written, that's as stupid as critics of Steinbeck who thought his Catherine was too evil. She is the perfect amount of sociopathic greed to be any conniving woman, and Austen is tame in terms of women apart from rich women at odds with themselves, which is beige in itself. Rage of revenge? Fuck me, have you not met another woman?

>Three Musketeers had 'strong' woman for the primary antagonist in Atho's wife Whatshername 2 electric boogaloo, but she ultimately carries off the female as an overly emotional pedestal character, only to be approached, conquered and fought against.
You put Austen's characters and writing on a pedestal, and they're dreck in comparison to even some male writers, let alone some female ones. This is just an exposition dump not analysis that suggests we should keep the ventilator running. It says nothing about the structuring btw, remember your own arguments.

>Which came first historically, do you know?
As if you couldn't sound more like you're reading the wiki.

>>6472521
Tough shit, gender's performative and you're my bitch.

>>6472589

In which case, I call you mine, you fucking whore.

She's tame in terms of women because she doesn't exceptionalize the character based on sex, something believe most authors make a fault of, including Steinbeck. I've dated many women, my recommendations here are meant to enlighten the OP on the subject of women and convince him, subtely, to be less sexist. Having them be 'beige' characters serves to psycologically ingratiate them to him as people, and lessen his supposedly prejudiced treatment of them. I've fucked 9 women, but I'm only 19.

I'm putting Austen on a pedestal because she's an author of good fiction, and her characters are good literary examples of real people. That's the subject of this thread. Forgive me if I take a break from shoivng post-modernism and pic related down his throat to give him an actual recommendation. I don't know, and quite frankly I don't have time to google it.

Give me a minute after this next post, I have to return some video tapes. Be back later you cock addicted slutbag.

>>6472626
>>6472626

>forgot pic

>wanting to read female writers

why?

you've got billions and billions of great books, and you're gonna waste time reading female authors' works? come on

>>6471316
http://therationalmale.com/

>>6472626
>I've dated many women, my recommendations here are meant to enlighten the OP on the subject of women and convince him, subtely, to be less sexist.
Beige women like Austen's characters are entirely the product of a wholly sexist environment, one more sexist than contemporary women who by virtue of their abnormality of privilege could overcome it. Instead of offering women who don't conform to one of the most sheltered and sexist classes of women at the time, you offer them as normalised. Those many women rinsed you and both of you would deny it to the death.

> I've fucked 9 women, but I'm only 19.
It shows. Both in saying this like it's relevant and your shitty taste.

>good literary examples of real people.
People like this don't exist any more, it's half of the appeal. Also why Dumas wrote historical fiction.

They're not real women. They're women who have their wings clipped; it's the basis of both Austen and the Bronte's fiction that such a life is abnormal to the point of writing novels about it. The Brontes are a severe case of that because they were so confined that it's credited with their juvenilia. Austen writes fluff because all there was access to was fluff. She writes about it bitchily, but she's not able to survive outside of cloakroom gossip in the century she was born.

Your recommendation couldn't be worse unless you planned on imprisoning your next gf.

I'm 30, doing a PhD at NASA and my married female coworker is in the same boat. Except she wants kids, which means she needs to do that in the next 5 years, which for her means she must apply for a good job, then "cheat" on the employers very soon into the job by taking off for 2 years.

I often feel I'm misogynistic in my views - lots of women turn you down all your life, and when you gf one, you invest a lot, you can't control at all what she wants and as exes, it doesn't appear (from my experience and perspective) that women feel responsibility or regrets for their actions, as long as they don't affect their personal future.

However, being old now and given what I said in the first paragraph, I see how they are biologically fucked - I can have kids with 45 if I want, and I don't even feel like I need them. Despite the entitlement and choice women have, they live a more stressful life, and they eat each other.

I'm 30, doing a PhD at NASA and my married female coworker is in the same boat. Except she wants kids, which means she needs to do that in the next 5 years, which for her means she must apply for a good job, then "cheat" on the employers very soon into the job by taking off for 2 years.

I often feel I'm misogynistic in my views - lots of women turn you down all your life, and when you gf one, you invest a lot, you can't control at all what she wants and as exes, it doesn't appear (from my experience and perspective) that women feel responsibility or regrets for their actions, as long as they don't affect their personal future.

However, being older now and given what I said in the first paragraph, I see how they are biologically fucked - I can have kids with 45 if I want, and I don't even feel like I need them. Despite the entitlement and choice women have, they live a more stressful life, and they eat each other.

>>6472018
>Wagner
>his hero

Ah, the musings of internet encyclopedia readers.

Feminism is just as stupid as misogyny. Both idealize women and keep "them" at a schism from the rest of the world. At least misogyny makes fun of clowns, whereas feminism demands voting rights for them. Either way, the people under the makeup suffocate.

Howards End by EM Forster

Sorry if this has already been mentioned

>>6472403
you don't know anything about poetry if you think Plato or Kierk or Nietzsche couldn't write

>>6471316
>I want to overcome this immature, stunted attitude.
It's the attitude of most grown men tbh. It's only women who say not liking women is immature or stunted.

>>6471508
Anon, this is the case with most mothers. Most families, in general.
Also
>Thick skinned

>>6473000
Kierk couldn't write but otherwise you trips bear truth.

>>6471562
armchair psychologists of 4chan are the worst

>>6471316
> I want to overcome this immature, stunted attitude.

Women are born with inherent value (sperm is disposable, eggs and wombs are not) and experience close to zero selective pressure, this is what allows them to be overgrown children that can get away with almost anything.

Whether she flips burgers or commands a large corporation doesn't matter at all for her reproductive abilities. In fact, in todays society - intelligent motivated women have LESS children than their counterparts. Genius and higher intellect does appear in women but it's extremely rare for reasons just stated. Not that it's common in men but you get the point.

>>6473689

>Muslims are RAMPANT RIGHTIST BARBARIANS
>Women are born with inherent value (sperm is disposable, eggs and wombs are not) and experience close to zero selective pressure, this is what allows them to be overgrown children that can get away with almost anything.

>>6472825
>implying wagner wasn't his hero for a long time
>implying he didn't want to be wagner
>implying he didn't want to fuck cosima

he wanted to ripley wagner if he could

>>6471316
But OP, the true path to loving and appreciating women is embracing these subtle nuances of hatred for them.

>>6473710
who's this load toad?
(the guy)

Feminism is just women's inate hypergamous predisposition now in full view for everyone to see.

It was always a thing patriarchical cultures pushed to the back. Silenced it to the point where men honestly thought women could be what they projected unto them: loyal creatures in pursuit of monogamous relationship who aren't as shallow as us men. In short, idealized versions of ourselves.

Now that we let women do half of the talking, we get this bullshit out in the open. The most vocal among them voice what a fair number think and feel, namely, remove all obstacles for men to like us what they're evolutionary wired to spot ( a healthy body ) so that we can gain access to the top shelf among the men.

It's opportunistic, all of it.

>>6473794

I've never met a chick who blew me away with her intelligence.

I'd like to, but most were above average tier at best.

>>6473861
I've never met anyone that's blew me away no matter whether they were intelligent or female

>>6473861
>>6473888

I've never met a chick who blew me

>>6473894

I have.

>>6473861
>>6473888
Once you know the basic sophisms is there anything left to be blown away by? Except maybe expertise in some specialised field that you can't really appreciate if you're not in the field yourself?

>>6471316
>On /lit/
>Can't even read the fucking stickies

>>6473910

Well I once emailed with this chick who at first gave the impression like she was passionate about the arts, history, you name it. But it was all deceit. As soon as I dated her, she wanted to watch all the bullshit every normal chick watches and didn't know as much as she pretended to. She faked it all to get me. Cute, but not really.

She was good at rephrasing shit she found on a great number of websites I'm sure ( quite the effort she did really ) to sound as if she had read and studied all these subjects we talked about.

She wasn't dumb, but she wasn't the person she pretended to be.
Women will always invest more in the social, they'll always be coquettish and those who don't are either lightspeed ugly and try to have those as extra's to, again, gain access to men, or they're mentally ill.

A cute intelligent chick without a few disorders? Yeah good luck finding that four-leaf clover.

>>6472221
This guy needs boundaries in his life.

The opposite of misogyny is not feminism.

>>6473956

This is the cringiest thing I've ever read. She looks pretty cute, and you fucked up.

>>6473956

>facialabuse.jpg

>>6473991
She crosseyed doe.

>>6473991
>she looks pretty cute

>>6474000

I got a little cross eye going on.

You implying Sartre wasn't cute?

>>6474012

Terrible taste in this thread.

>>6474019
The joke is that you're EMBARRASSING yourself by not recognizing her

>>6474019

She seems like the perfect gf to me. She's freaky as fuck, rich as fuck, and is doing a PhD in Chinese art history.

>>6473991
kek

>>6473991

>i disagree with you cuz im against wimminshaming n shit becuz so postmodern

You're a walking stereotype and no loss to humanity whatsoever.

>>6473991

She's everything that you in a another thread deny exists.

>>6474019
> Are u a wizard?

>>6474039

Oops.

>>6474041

*blushes*

>>6474043
>>6474045

Why are you all so mean?

>>6474053

And what's that.

>>6474073

Are you denying that he's a cutie?

>>6474078

>And what's that.

What women truly desire: bedroom Birkenau

>>6473991
>name yourself after a man who deliberately gave people AIDS in BDSM orgies
>still being this naive

>>6474041

And she thinks you're a pussy with your "I l-like Chinese art d-during the Tang d-dynasty :3."

>>6474086

I can't tell what kind of edgy shit you're implying but just try to be safe, ok?

>>6474097

What if I think you're being naive.

>>6474106
>What if I think you're being naive.
That would be naive.

>>6474124

What if you're being naive, right now, and you don't even know it.

Valarie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto is a really fun read. It's not serious scholarship or anything but it's an interesting look into the mind of a female schopenhauer or Weininger.

>>6472245
If you want a feminist Brönte, read Anne.

L A C A N

A

C

A

N

>>6473000
Plato was supposed to be a really good writer even for his time, plus, he originally wanted to be poet, but Socrates convinced to change his mind. Nietzsche was also a good writer who just happened to have strong philisophical ideas, and used his ability to sell spread them.

They were exceptions to the norm.

>>6473915
>Philosophy
>not /lit/