/lit/ - Literature

>>8323300
Just dont write about them

>>8323300
You can't respect things that are not self-aware. It makes no sense to respect a dog or a rock.

Women are worthless fuckin units. They aren't ethical brings and they can't truly love or be loyal. They don't deserve respect.

They are barely human.

All they care about is Chad cock, they are animals.

Read fucking Schopenhauer, he was based as fuck.

Women need a strong authoritarian figure to discipline them, on their own they engage in degeneracy.

They take up to 200 cocks before even leaving high school, does that warran respect? No.

Don't be a slave to a hole. Women are worthless and only have their reeking mackerel cunts to offer.

Don't cuck yourself, women are only interested in men for status and money

Take the redpill

>>8323319
This

/thread

>>8323300
Write men with vaginas and a bit more emotion.

>>8323319
>this is what prolonged virginity will do to you

>>8323300
Just write about your mum

unless you had a shit mun then sucks to be you lol

As an example, here is my attempt at writing from the perspective of a woman.

-------
The bastard gave me an inarticulate stare; the kind that one receives in the midst of a club, dancing solitarily to the beat of Prince’s ‘Cream’, foreign eyes fixated on individual elements of the body but never revealing any intentions. As my slender fingers click-clacked along the manipulative surface of typewriter keys, I felt his gaze tighten upon my lips; lusciously red but imperfectly dry, I noticed the lower resituate for a moment to the level of the upper in a moment of uneasiness.

Every female protagonist I write is usually autistic and apathetic.

Others are usually just tropes. Not really that different writing male characters to be honest.

>>8323319
Explain, in a coherent way, why "taking cock" diminishes a womans intellectual Worth.

>>8323300
my method for respecting women is that i imagine i'm gay and women are men

>>8323360
They don't have intellectual worth, cuck

And they should be virgins. See how female sexuality has ruined western civilization

>>8323368
Why should they be virgins? You didn't answer the question btw

>>8323368
Are you saying that all men have intellectual Worth?

>>8323371
Because female sexuality is a disease
>>8323373
They are more human than women, and more rational and logic, so yes

>>8323319

>>8323343
Way too many words for what your saying, half it.

>>8323380
>They are more human than women
How do you define human in this case?

The entire concept of a "character" implies all kinds of subtle immanent teleologies and destiny and intentionality.

Women are like a species of chimp that can reach to suck its own dick, so that's all it does all day. They don't have destinies in real life, so narrative mimesis can't make them protagonists in fiction.

Even a child can think up a fairly compelling male character, with an immediately implicit arc, because it's just basic human nature to think of men in terms of striving after their goals and growing in the process. It's like the essence of humanity itself, called "Mankind" for a reason. For the same reason, even a child knows that a narrative about a woman makes no sense: the woman would either only simulate drivenness as an ornament, or she'd give up after 5 minutes and start crying for a dude to actually undertake to accomplish her goal for her. EVERYONE knows this.

This is why any Hollywood action grrrl story is intuitively garbage. The stale tropes of even the most schlocky fantasy adventure story with a male protagonist has some kind of origin in a spiritual idea, some kind of basic hero's journey shit. A story about a woman going on a quest is ALL trope. There is no organic core to build it up from, so you just build this ornate crystalline structure entirely out of tropes. The human soul can sense that it's "off," fundamentally uncanny, for a woman to have ambition or to mutilate her Being for the sake of a Becoming.

It's not about respect. It's like asking why you'll never respect floral wallpaper enough to write a good bildungsroman about it. It's fucking wallpaper. It's there to pretty up the place, not be a vehicle for anagnorisis. Put your cock in it and go back to being a free artist of yourself.

>>8323380
>more rational and logic, so yes
Really proving your point here, champ
>they should be virgins
So we should have no civilisation at all?

You still haven't responded if you're a virgin or not, although you'll probably lie by this point to protect your deep and obvious sexual insecurities

>>8323388
Rational

>>8323380
But anon, aren't you just projecting your own subjective image of women onto that demographic, and furthermore generalising them to the point where you're saying that all women fuck around and that they aren't self-conscious?

>>8323360
It doesn't. Not him, but I'm all for more freedom in sexuality, I think it's quite beautiful that we're in an age where women can take full control of their sexual lives. Humans are sexual beings after all. That said, women never had intellectual worth to begin with, so your entire question is moot.

>>8323394
Are robots more human than us then?

>>8323391
Yes I am a virgin and proud not to succumb to lust an degeneracy. You can't virgin shame me, roastwhore.

Much of my writing models my life in some way or form, so it wouldn't be strange for there to be very little or none women in them.

What's with the sudden influx of /pol/shit at the moment? There was just the thread about Sanders that wasn't even trying to be /lit/ and now we've got this dipshit.

>>8323432
We're taking over, cuck.

Take the redpill or fuck off to /r/books

>>8323432
/pol/ gets the most traffic at the moment if I'm not mistaken, by quite a large margin, so it is only natural there would be a lot of spillover in to other boards

Besides, this is more /r9k/ if you ask me.

>>8323432
I know, right? I wish this place were a hugbox where I can talk about my gay feelings. I'm transitioning to female tomorrow. What about you? I've already gouged out my new pussy hole with a pair of scissors. Soon I'll be a beautiful woman! #ImWithHer #blacklivesmatter

>>8323300
you read about the lives of great women and their accomplishments, i suppose. you observe well written women in great novels and try to learn from that. you just mature enough so that these childish prejudices seem like a distant and embarrassing memory to you.

>>8323445
How is my thread remotely /r9k/?
I'm legitimately dealing with the fact that I am a sexist and borderline misogynist, which I wish to change, but empathizing with women via my own attempts at writing literature.

>>8323432
I'm fairly certain half of them are just shitposters, and /R9K/'s pseudo fascination with us because Elliot Rodger was literate to an extent is what's causing all this unfounded misogyny and citing of Schopenhauer's meme tier essay (replace women with 'layman' and man with 'great person' or 'introspective person' or 'philosophically endowed individual) and the essay becomes much more coherent

>>8323453
also read great female novelists. they are out there, despite what some people here may say. tell me your favorite writers and ill try recommend some that align with your tastes

>>8323454
Yo wanted an /r9k/ circle jerk and got it. Or you would've opened the thread in a less obvious way

>>8323459
Huysmans, Kipling, Schelling

>>8323459
hi im a new reader, but im looking for a female author that touches on how they perceive the world and their perspective as a woman. doesn't have to be fiction.

i've also read some short stories by Ivan Turgenev which i've liked.

also read stoner and thought it was great.

if you could recommend me anything, i'd appreciate it a lot. thanks

>>8323459
Oscar Wilde, Borges, Julius Evola, Dante.

>>8323473
Pretty much anything by Margaret Atwood.

>>8323467
I've never even been on /r9k/.

Women are garbage

>>8323473
George Eliot, Jane Austen

>>8323300
meet some

>>8323380
>more human
>human = rational

lol do you honestly believe you are rational?
or more human than a fucking human being?

a rational world couldn't exist. literally. there's no reason for existence, right? less efficient than nothingness, right? so.. irrationality is inescapable, even at the most fundamental level.

Furthermore, mathematical reasoning is not computational. You'd think computation is the epitome of rationality, but you'd also think that mathematics is. Nope. So you're hopeless.

>>8323300
Daily reminder.

>>8323300
Tone down on the autism there. If you can't write about women authentically, you're bound to be a shit writer. Don't listen to the /r9k/ fags about how its impossible to write up a good female character without making her into a man/sexualized fantasy. It's possible, just not many people can do it because most of /lit/ writers lack the experience of the human condition. My best advice for you is to get out there and experience life, so that your words may imitate life and "feel" authentic.

I've met women and men alike, who are like a book instead of blank pages waiting to be written upon. I guest that's how you identify good people. I think you need to look for a complexity within people to truly appreciate them

>>8323469
edith wharton, ayn rand, margaret visser, flannery o'connor and definitely clarice lispector, simone de beauvoir
>>8323473
jane austen definitely. margaret atwood, virginia woolf, the brontes
>>8323476
austen, gaskell, dorothy parker, all of the above desu

>>8323494
I don't get this post. Women are simply human beings, and are not more or less profound than men.

The idea that it's supposedly hard to write a female character authentically, assume that there is some specific kind of female essence, beyond what exists in a male. Which I think is ridiculous.

9 times out of 10, women are almost exactly like men, they think about disgusting sexual fetishes, they want to fuck daily, they read books, they watch TV, they go to the gym, they talk shit with their co-workers, and they talk about dicks instead of vaginas with their friends.

Where's the profoundness?

>>8323494
>Depreciation in chapter 10
What kind of shitty accounting class are you taking?

>>8323399
Hedonist scum

>>8323394
Rationality is the least human virtue.

>>8323534
Make an argument against sexual freedom.

>>8323534
fail
>>8323543
this; emotions matter to hedonists who think hedonism is a good life style.
But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist. In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.

for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death


hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.

of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.

Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.

>>8323543
Sexual """liberation""" broke the family unit. Taking away the natural consequence for being a slut was disastrous, it perverted an act of procreation into one purely for cheap pleasure.

>>8323543
>Make an argument against sexual freedom.
see
>>8323488

>>8323446
Do you realise how much you sound like a fucking SJW?

"hey we r being raided by pol wtf guys'

'haha u dont like getting raided by us ARENT YOU A PROGRESSIVE FUCKING TRUDEAU DUDE WEED KEK BLACK ORPHAN DIMENSIONAL DYSPHORIA ESSS JAY DOUBLE YOU"

>writing a rule 63 manga about the cold war
>all the characters are girls, but actually men
>only have to briefly write about girls here and there
take the easy way out senpai

>>8323555
>implying pleasure is cheap

Spooky

>>8323555
Trips wasted by a complete fucking retard.

As much as /pol/ loves to talk about Darwinism and natural consequence as well as use it as a way to rationalise things, 'hey heinous shit happens because thats nature if it wasnt nature it wouldve never happened therefor ur wrong', cant you apply that argument to 'sexual liberation' and other concepts that make your feelings hurt and realise the reason they happened is because evolutionary consequence within humans incurred them to?

>>8323555
>family unit
Expand on why this is any more than a social construct? What natural consequence do you refer to?

>>8323556
That's not an argument against sexual freedom.

>>8323300
This is an 18+ website.

>>8323555
Nah it's just sexist divorce and custody laws. Women winning custody 83% of the time is more bullshit than women not being soldiers, and they usually benefit more from divorce than men and women file for divorce more than men.

Not to mention child custody pay is scaling, so when you lose custody, the more money you make the more money you owe. It's not designed around what is best for the child, it's designed around what's best for the women.

>>8323543
it doesn't exist because condoms break and men do not have any choice what so ever in terms of getting an abortion or putting the kid up for adoption.

So if you fuck somebody and your condom breaks then you suddenly owe 150,000 dollars if the girl decides to be irresponsible, and you don't get to see your kid very much or raise them.

>>8323567
If I can get it for $50 in the red light district of my city, it's cheap.

>>8323577
>That's not an argument against sexual freedom.

It sure is. Rich people are the beneficiaries of market freedom, because they have so much money they can ignore market forces, but the rest of society is left with scraps.

The same thing happened when the Sexual Revolution happened. Before it, marriage was seen as both a romantic union, and as a financial agreement between 2 parties, and even the ugliest of the ugly in society would get married and have children. After the Sexual Revolution only the top tier of men have sex, with most of the women, because as we all know, most people look average, and most people can't compete with the Brad Pitt's of the world who get all the women and all the access to vaginas.

>>8323585
>So if you fuck somebody and your condom breaks then you suddenly owe 150,000 dollars if the girl decides to be irresponsible
You're irresponsible by fucking an irresponsible girl.

>>8323588
>I don't know what pleasure is
Sounds accurate for someone from /pol/

>>8323585
You're making an argument about sexism in civil law, not about sexual liberation. Not to mention that the situations you describe could happen without liberation having ever taken place.

>>8323597
Except that isn't even remotely true.

>>8323607
>Except that isn't even remotely true.

Except it is, which you would know if you weren't ugly.

>>8323601
>>8323603
>You're irresponsible by fucking an irresponsible girl.
You do realize that any girl anywhere has the rights to do this to you, right? From New York universities to bars, this happens, and a lot. Sexual liberation is not real for men and you have no rights, ignore the /r9k//pol/ coalition.

>>8323609
were ugly*

>>8323300
Know that they were born that way, and that the intelligent ones have taken a virtuous path.

>>8323610
You have the right to be picky and not fuck crazy people.

>>8323511
The profoundness lays at the bottom, where you must put aside all the less-pleasant things to fully enjoy. Most people has had to kill themselves to find value in life, if they even want to find it at all

>>8323620
because women totally have "crazy" written on their foreheads you fucking retard

>>8323609
Then why do I see ugly men with more attractive women all the time? You live in a bubble. If you left the bubble, you too would find women. But you should hold yourself to higher standards of pleasure than sex.

>>8323620
I don't think you understand. EVERY girl has the right to do this to you. Your odds will be slightly better if you are the primary caretaker and sign a prenup and make less money than her, but she still will be favored in courts and can extort you if she wants. Not to mention that prenups are invalidated in courts if you aren't a good boy for your entire life.

>>8323597
>>8323551
>>8323390
Thanks for the ideology, this is some real pure shit and I needed my fix today

>>8323626
>Then why do I see ugly men with more attractive women all the time?

You don't. Stop lying.

>>8323625
If you can tell right away, take your fucking time to find out instead of sticking it in. Not that hard.

>>8323627
Every woman has the right because pregnancy is infinitely times more punitive for her than for him.

By avoiding the crazies, you make sure that it will never be relevant in the first place.

>Not to mention that prenups are invalidated in courts if you aren't a good boy for your entire life.
Citation needed. Besides, is it really that challenging?

>>8323645
>infinitely more punitive
You're missing the point, she has an opt out.
> by avoiding crazies
EVERY woman has the 'right' to do this.

>>8323645
You can increase your probability of fortune, but it happens to the best. IIRC the wikipedia founder is currently paying child support to 2-3 women and he rarely sees his kids because his ex's don't want to move.

The cumulative rights add up though

>even if there is agreeance before hand to no children and a condom is attempted to be used
>the women has the sole right to abortion or not
>the women can vote against adoption
>the women WILL win child custody
>the women WILL win child support

it's harder to invalidate prenups as a normie, but for people in the finance industry you are particularly vulnerable, and pessimistic sounding emails as a publically traded company is enough to invalidate it.

>>8323403
You're ashamed enough, freindo.

>>8323319
>Before leaving high school

Nothing says mature, rational world views like clinging on to hormonal adolescent angst. Your childhood, childish views on the behavior of other children isn't really applicable to mature, rent-paying adults with real life and world experiences.

>>8323300
You can't 'respect' women as you say.
Regardless of how you write women, feminists are guaranteed to call it sexist. Changing something isn't going to make a difference either, as long as there are any women in your work, they will complain about it.
Now, if you want to write a good story that involves women, you should do just that.

You pay men for services you can't do. Other than that, they are useless to you.
Women's only use is sex. They offer a service; sex and intimacy.
Being friends with a woman does not make sense because you will inevitebly want intercourse with her if you find her physically attractive, and the possibility of rejection increases dramatically, the longer you two are friends. This is because she "sees you as a friend" ie the female realises she can exploit you of your intimacy without recouperating with sex. Obviously females enjoy sex or else they wouldn't have it, but sex for them is like chocolate. If they want some, they can just go get it. Whereas for males, sex is like excersise; if we want results we have to work extremely hard. (Unless you have good genetics and fast metabolism, then all you have to do is mimic normie behaviour and not sperg out, then you can get laid).
When was the last time a girl rewarded you with sex for saving her life? How about when you defended her from being raped/picked on by bullies? When you took her to prom, only for her to be fucked by Chad that night? Oh she's bipoler/depressed/autistic? And you looked after her for how many years? Oh my God, she cheated on you with Chad! All you did for her, the money you spent. No matter what, you shall not kill yourself because there's plenty of fish in the sea... Oh wait? The guy who bullied you all throughout highschool, set your hair on fire, called you a nigger/paki/whitetrash/pizza face; you just caught him fucking your mom? Holy shit dude that is when you kill her and kill yourself.
Murphy's law everybody: 'Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong at the worst possible moment.'

I respect women tbqh
would not pander to them though, that would be a disrespect

>>8324093
write under a female pseudonym

>>8323343
Stop writing man ur not good at it

>>8324108
>t. Someone who has a folder dedicated to Pepe the frogman

>>8324148
If that's a joke I don't get it

>>8323319
Jesus christ this post is really sad.
>When you're a virgin past the age of 30

>>8323300
There are billions of people that you haven't met, male and female. I wouldn't go around declaring conclusions about billions of people when you've gotten to know less than a thousand.

Really, you doubt yourself over everything else, why let this be your outlet of cognitive dissonance? I know it is easier to be angry at this thing, but it doesn't make much sense.

>>8323300
Nice double dubs

Gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

much butthurt, mad

srsly thou i write about way attractive meaningful realistic women with deep
4relz

>>8323319
only someone who hasn't read much of anything could think like this

>>8323394
you know nothing

>>8323551
>Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel'

Why wouldn't you be dead then? There's nothing to consciously experience, so what else is there?

Just think of a man, then take away reason and accountability.

>>8323629
there is such a thing as attractive poor women who stay poor all their lives marrying ugly poor men. this has happened, this will happen.

>>8323686
What if you wrote up a contract she signed that says all potential pregnancies will be aborted?
>>8324093
>a single instance of a class of people immensely large and thus near impossible to describe generally is sexist
god aren't they something

>>8324108
>Women's only use is sex.
>Oh she's bipoler/depressed/autistic? And you looked after her for how many years?
is this bait? fucking pathetic either way

>>8323300
There's been plenty of sexist authors. Take For Whom the Bell Tolls. Of the two female characters, one is just a woman who acts like a man and the other is a thoughtless dependent of the male protagonist.

>>8323597
even if one would grant you that premise, that in itself is not an argument against sexual freedom. if anything, your perverted alt right cuck logic is just being inverted here. the cherry picked market/social Darwinistic values you guys circle jerk when it comes to money and race are exemplary of this. if 'gib me' fags and 'dindu' fags are just byproducts of the system then so to are 'forever alone' fags - survival of the fittest and all. subscribing to your logic, it seems to me like just a way of breeding out losers and thus in the long run actually being an argument for sexual freedom.

>>8323319
How'd you end up on this board again?

>>8323360
You can't diminish something that doesn't exist.

>>8326033
>there is such a thing as attractive poor women

lol no

>>8323300
they are people, just like you and me. your phrasing of this question posits women as the "other"

>>8326054
Across the River and Into the Trees has a superb female character however.

>>8323300
speak for yourself nigger

>>8323384
kek

>>8326054
>>8326656
What does a "good female" character even mean? This has not been explained at all.

Please read my post here and answer>>8323511

>>8326669
What does it say that this animu is the first thing that comes to mind when the idea of writing "meaningful female characters" comes up?

>>8323626
Because attractiveness is not the most important trait a female is looking for in a male. First comes wealth/social status, then the alpha traits (height, V-taper etc.)
So unless the man is very wealthy, influential or otherwise has a high social status, or maybe has the Dark Triad personality, you don't.

>>8326099
If a population with a strong patriarchal attitude and female sexuality strictly checked can zerg rush a population with broken family units with lots of divorces, decreasing number of marriages and decreasing birth rates, then I would say yes, that's a pretty good argument against sexual freedom.
Have you ever wondered why no succesful civilization existed on a historical scale that wasn't based on patriarchy and monogamous marriage?

>>8323319
mate, you seriously need to catch a ride.

you'll never be a good writer

>>8326728
why

>>8326732
if you can't write about things, you can't be a good writer

>>8326723
female sexuality doesn't have a lot to do with monogamy

>>8323300
Consuming fiction with good female characters (not in a self-aware social-justice sort of way, just good characters who happen to be female) helped me with this. I didn't do it on purpose, it just happened randomly.

Of course, fictional characters in general are far more likable than real people, but in seeing the difference between fictional and real women you'll see the same in men. But obviously it's indisputable that getting more attention for physical attractiveness makes people narcissistic and sociopathic, so some of the hate for women is justified. It's just a result of circumstances, but I'd say a randomly selected woman is somewhat less likely to be a decent person than a randomly selected man.

You'll have better results with less attractive women though, they have much more incentive to become real people (the ones that aren't bogged down in bizarro-/r9k/ ressentiment, that is).

>>8326739
It has everything to do with monogamy, not only that, male sexuality too. The fact of the matter is that neither sexes are monogamous by nature, men are polygamous while women are hypergamous. I don't think polygamy needs explanation; hypergamy on the other hand is when a woman wants the best man for herself, and keeps trading up, if she can finds a better partner than her current one. In other words hypergamy is serial monogamy.
It's pretty easy to deduce what happens without the control of monogamy that channels/limits the sexual energy of the sexes in a productive way for society: everyone starts following his/her natural instincts. People thought what would happen after sexual liberation is the male sexual utopia of everyone having sex with many females. Insted, what happened in reality is quite the opposite: women started to chase their own sexual utopia of every women wanting a strong, alpha male for herself. It's only natural as in this game women have all the assets, a.k.a. the pussy. Of yourse in reality only the top 20% of men can be considered the best aplha males so that leads all the women chasing these top 20% of males leading to these top 20% of men having all the sex with 80% of women. It is only natural that a lot of women won't find suitable partners for themselves because, clearly, there aren't enough men that can meet their higher standards. so what happens is they hop on the cock carousel and enp up as washed up bitter whores when they hit the wall after 35 and realizing their beauty is fading quickly and they no longer have the pussy game to attract the best males. As for men, the top 20% is quite happy and simply isn't willing to marry because he can get all the pussy he wants without marriage, not to mention there's a high possibility he can get raped at divorce courts. The rest of the men encounter serious hardships getting a women, and even if they manage to get a woman for themselves and marry her, chances are high their wifes will get either bored or uppity and grown resentful for having to settle anyone other than Chad whose thundercock they were so pleased to experience in their younger days of """"having fun"""". Btw, do you know which species function by this 80-20 ratio? Baboons. Yep, western civilization maged to degrade back to the level of a baboon pack, when it comes to sexuality.

>>8326764
married women lose their sexuality, got it

>>8323300
call your mom and tell her you're sorry for calling her a cunt when she took away your Gameboy as a kid

>>8323577
Just want to point out that traditional family is not social construct because partners need to raise their kids and invest time in them for them to develop. Humans are not programmed only genetically, their capabilities and potentials must be reached by learning which mean upbringing. Traditional family is ensuring this. If you are against family units then you wont have civilized people. The only different ways to family which would create culture and civilization is state upbringing or some male harems.


Dont really care much about discussing this with lit as there is a lot of biology in it and human psyche fundamentals.

If you go too much liberal it will create non order and civilization cant sustain no order. From it will rise another one which will devour the old non order. It is happening throughout human history over and over again and family unit is important part in it.

>Respecting men in the first place
Fucking casuals, all of you.

>>8326813
enlightenment propaganda

aristocratic children were never raised by their parents

>>8326850
True