[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 43 KB, 315x475, 1487921907003.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9150874 No.9150874 [Reply] [Original]

Did you notice the way most authors refer to "women", in that anonymously collective way? Like talking about their relationships and personal lives. "The women" are always anonymous and non-important compared to the person talking about them, their entire beings collapsed to a single, catchall word. What I mean is that "Women" is usually used as an euphemism for a series of sexual relations with many different females over some period of time, rather than just that, a number of females larger than one. Like when Bukowski puts in as the title of his book, it's obvious to the reader that what is meant by it is the whole process of interaction between men and women, the "dating sphere", etc. A very utilitarian way of describing people, makes it seem like they're just objects to be used or something. You know what I mean?

I guess the inverse is also true, but it's nowhere near as widely used, probably because women don't talk about men as openly as men do about them. And to be honest I don't really know how to describe this clearly because the idea I have of it is rudimentary still, more like a feeling or something.

>> No.9150884

>>9150874
>probably because women don't talk about men as openly as men do about them.
Yeah, right.

>> No.9150886

>>9150874
That book is the only book with a german title I actually like more than the original, which I thought was impossible, because german's can't title things for shit.
"Lovelives of Hyenas" it's called.

>> No.9150888

>>9150884
Well, at least not in books. because there aren't that many women authors

>> No.9150909

>>9150874
>>9150888
>I guess the inverse is also true, but it's nowhere near as widely used, probably because women don't talk about men as openly as men do about them.
>because there aren't that many women authors
You think that because you consume media produced by men.
You choose to not see the books written by female authors. All the thrillers and novels. Various best seller lists are in fact regularly dominated by females. Books you simply don't care about and thus not see.
People here dismiss the gigantic quantity of books written by women each year. This doesn't make it into your consideration.

In your claim,
>Did you notice the way most authors refer to X, in that anonymously collective way?
you could replace X with anything. X=economy majors. X=Brits.
What's your insight?

For starters, get the latest issue of the Cosmo Mag and you'll find out 20 tricks that make men go crazy for you.

>> No.9150911

>>9150909
Are you a feminist?

>> No.9150912

>>9150888
There are many, therr just aren't many famous ones. Probably has something to do with availability of education but even in the past 40 years most of the classic writers have been men. Its kinda odd, either I only read male authors unthinkingly without giving opportunity to females, or men just have more inmate ability than women.

>> No.9150952

>>9150909
>You choose to not see the books written by female authors.

How can I choose not to see something I don't even know is there? I wouldn't read whatever's topping the amazon charts either way, no matter who wrote them. But yeah, I agree on the rest. Literature is male-dominated, no surprise there.

You seem like you know what you're talking about, maybe you could recommend some interesting books written from a female perspective? If there's one. Something to contrast it with the usual male one.

>What's your insight?
There's no grand insight, just wanted to discuss this thing I've been thinking about. Yeah, you could refer to masses of people with single words, but this particular case stands out to me because it's mostly always sexual, the implication suggesting that there's an inherent connection between women and sex. While something like "economy majors" is largely neutral. "Women" denotes a pool of things the author has had, or is planning to have sex with, and nothing more. It's like something out of a documentary on wild life, a foreign object of study that is only meant to be interacted with in certain ways.

>> No.9151466
File: 88 KB, 600x864, 1481176409919.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9151466

>>9150874
>I guess the inverse is also true, but it's nowhere near as widely used, probably because women don't talk about men as openly as men do about them.
I disagree with this statement on accounts of personal experience. From where I'm sitting I can see that the approach to which women talk about men is much more reserved and with more reverence (generally speaking of corse) than men talking about women. So effectively so that one might get the idea that men exclusively banter with locker-room talk because they are more prone to boast conquests . Clark's 1995 film 'Kids' has a scene about this where there are interchanged cuts about girls and boys behaving and talking about sucking dick or fucking or w/e with the exact same type of approach about sex.