/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11631466]

Books on understanding women?

[Anonymous No.11631469]

>>11631466
all you need is that jack nicholson quote from the movie with the fag and roastie road trip

[Anonymous No.11631473]

>>11631466
Canterbury Tales has a couple. I think The Wife of Bath is one of them

[Anonymous No.11631509]

Second sex by Simone de Beauvoir, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Wollestonecraft and On Women by Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.11631523]

Nobody understands women not even themselves

[Anonymous No.11631525]

>>11631509
I'm no genius but I don't think these three can kiss with one another

[Anonymous No.11631531]

>>11631469
Which is ?

[Anonymous No.11631542]

>>11631523
Are you a woman, anon?

[Anonymous No.11631567]

>>11631531
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIQj3SecNCM

[Anonymous No.11631579]

>>11631525
Second sex is seen as internalized mysoginy by modern feminists, so I don't see why it wouldn't fit.

[Anonymous No.11631592]

>>11631466
First understand yourself you male faggot.

[Anonymous No.11631594]

>>11631466
>portrait-2865605_960_720.jpg
Portrait of a Lady - Henry James

[Anonymous No.11631609]

The Lady: Studies of Certain Significant Phases of Her History
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
The Empress Is Naked: From Female Privilege to Gender Equality and Social Liberation
Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess
The Manual: What Women Want and How to Give It to Them

[Anonymous No.11631620]

>>11631592
>men must be able to look at the ways that patriarchal culture keeps them from knowing themselves

[Anonymous No.11631654]

Book of Pook

[Anonymous No.11631787]

>>11631466
Middlemarch talks a lot about how women feel and why they do what they do. Also just a really well written book

[Anonymous No.11632041]

RENOUNCE THE FLESH.
TEMPER YOUR DESIRES.

[Anonymous No.11632047]

>>11632041
chaste and breadpilled

[Anonymous No.11632048]

Ulysses Epsiode 19 is all you need

[Anonymous No.11632054]

>>11631466
Schopenhauer's essay on women

[Anonymous No.11632060]

>>11631466
The Holy Quran

[Anonymous No.11632062]

>>11631592
Gross

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11632064]

Jung and Freud.

Just attribute the unconsciousness they speak of to the primary modus operandi of the female consciousness and you'll understand them plenty well enough.

[Anonymous No.11632067]

>>11632041
The more you masturbate, the more you'll resemble women. The less, the more you'll know them.

[Anonymous No.11632168]

>>11632064
>>11632054
>>11631469
I bet you're very successful with women.

[Anonymous No.11632175]

>>11632067
made me think

[Anonymous No.11632278]

>>11631609
>The Manual: What Women Want and How to Give It to Them
This. I'm the only other anon itt that has read that book and it's one of the most helpful books I've read. The autist's guide to get a gf

[Anonymous No.11632287]

>>11632168
get the fuck out of my board you worthless whore

[Anonymous No.11632293]

That Models book is unironically pretty insightful and accurate until it gets all pick-upy

[Anonymous No.11632316]

>>11632067
I mean he's not wrong. If you can conquer your sexual urges you will be able to objectively analyse women, rather than resorting to muh dick at the first sight of one.

[Anonymous No.11632486]

>>11632168
lmao textboox

[Anonymous No.11632520]

>>11631523
>>11631542
Can any woman confirm?

[Anonymous No.11632537]

>>11632486
hey guys i found the virgin

[Anonymous No.11632551]

>>11632537
Yeah no shit, this guy must be a 21 year old virgin who thinks he doesn't get dates because he is too "nice". I bet he also confuses assertiveness with over-agression

[Anonymous No.11632577]

The Satanic Warlock, seriously

[Anonymous No.11632620]

>>11632537
>>11632551
t e x t b o o k

[Anonymous No.11632649]

>>11632486
>>11632287
I'm a male and my point remains

[Anonymous No.11632661]

>>11631466
Twilight, unironically

[Anonymous No.11632767]

>>11632649
see point 2

tekstubuku

[Anonymous No.11632847]

>>11632767
I'm still a male
kek

[Anonymous No.11632856]

>>11631466
Vox by Nicholson Baker

[Anonymous No.11632866]

maybe its because Im the only male in my household, but what is so difficult or different about understanding women?

[Anonymous No.11632873]

>>11632620
r a n d o m w o r d s p a c e d o u t

[Anonymous No.11632883]

>>11632866
>They're all sluts who fuck everyone
>but they won't fuck me

[Anonymous No.11632884]

>>11632866
hormones

[pooposter !!ciZV6Id/Qdc No.11632917]

>>11631466
you dont you just fuck em

[Anonymous No.11632933]

>>11632866
Just the entire thing. All of the stupid mind games, the pathological lack of personal accountability (on a relationship level), their whole idea of wanting do be dominated in bed but only in the special specific way they want it to happen, what they find attractive in general, etc

[Anonymous No.11632953]

>>11631466
In Her Absence by Antonio Munoz Molina
As a Man Grows Older by Italo Svevo
Like Death by Guy de Maupassant
Alien Hearts by Guy de Maupassant
The Origin of the World by Pierre Michon
La Vita Nuova by Dante Alighieri

[Anonymous No.11632960]

>>11631787
Middlemarch is definitely one of the greats.

[Anonymous No.11633855]

This is a rambling post but:

1. >>11631523
>Nobody understands women not even themselves
is entirely correct. but man doesnt understand man either.
as the saying goes, if we were simple enough to be understandable, we would be too simple to understand anything.

it's quite easy to answer: how to understand a (particular) man (or woman)? -- but to understand "men" or "women" as platonic ideals is a bit of a misnomer.

im not saying men and women are the same, but there are women who i'd say i share more of that ineffable "essence" with than some men. So these "ideals" are -- at most -- slightly shifted loci, not primary categorisations of Human; a rich man has more in common with a rich woman than to a poor man. A sick man.yada yada. A saintly man yada yada.

But there are differences: eg
- female aggression is passive, silent and long-lasting
- male aggression is violent, unambiguous and sudden

------------------------
to answer the q:
Dorothy Parker's short stories
notably (here selected ONLY as an exposition of woman):

- The Lovely Leave
-The Sexes
- The Waltz (but not that representative of the 21st century woman)
- The Big Blonde
- Just a Little One
- Horsie

These are semi-self-deprecating and satirical exaggerations of a woman

[Anonymous No.11633857]

Anna Karenina

[Anonymous No.11633867]

>>11633855
2. >>11632933
you might have a bit of confirmation bias. I note all these things are primarily concerned with the heterosexual interactions between men and women. That is, I assume (and do say if I'm wrong) you've observed that women you interact with with play mind-games more than the men you interact with. That might be because of a difference in men and women. Or it might be that your interactions with women are more likely to be romantic or sexual, than those with men. And that mind-games in romantic or sexual relations are more prevalent than in professional or platonic relations.

if it is an essential difference between men and women: ask yourself why? why might a woman (think of example women that you know) be more subtle about their attraction, or more timid in their rejection -- than a man might be free to be?


3. this is just bait though. or I hope it is. >>11632486 there is nothing quite as pitiful as someone claiming to distain that which he so apparently covets.
"I love women but they deny me. Therefore I hate women for not denying others"

[Anonymous No.11633888]

>>11631466
women are whatever symbol your brain decides to project onto them

[Anonymous No.11633945]

>>11633867
>And that mind-games in romantic or sexual relations are more prevalent than in professional or platonic relations.
Yeah women are the ones that play mind games in romantic relationships. I've never done any kind of stupid "shit test" type stuff before to a women. I don't know any man who has either, yet if you ask any guy about this shit he'll know exactly what you're talking about because of how common it is.

>why might a woman (think of example women that you know) be more subtle about their attraction, or more timid in their rejection -- than a man might be free to be?
That's who whole fucking thing though: girls are just as free to do whatever they want nowadays, that was the entire point of uprooting our society with feminism in the first place. No girl in her teens or twenties in this country that I've interacted with has grown up in a society where they aren't free to not act ridiculous, but they keep on doing it. It's like 99.99% of them are completely unconscious of how crazy they act. And even when you come across the types who are like "women are all crazy get used to it", I genuinely don't think they understand what is meant by it and they're just saying that because they've heard men say it. If they're going to act like this then why did we give them equal rights in the first place, y'know? Like fuck, if you want the same rights as a man then don't play all these stupid fucking mind games.

[Anonymous No.11634046]

>>11633945
>if you ask a guy
do you talk to women about what they are subjected to in a relationship?

Maybe you're right that men are subjected to more "mind-games" than women; and "mind-games" isn't a nice thing to be subjected to. But neither is, say, domestic violence and murder -- which women are subjected to more than men.

When you say "girls are just as free to do whatever they want nowadays":
You're talking about "equal rights" so I assume you mean legal freedom .
(side note:
>If they're going to act like this then why did we give them equal rights in the first place, y'know?
is ridiculous. Because, by definition, rights are morally unconditional. The very fact that some men (eg. you?) consider their legal rights to be conditional on agreeableness to men they are intimate with -- is why the struggle to secure these rights (just like the struggle to secure the rights even men haven't always enjoyed) continues.)

if you really *do* wish to understand women, read There's a Good Girl by M Grabrucker

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theres-Good-Girl-Gender-Stereotyping/dp/0704340909


I'm not sure of your philosophical intutions -- so I don't know how well you take the suggestion that you are very much determined by your environment and upbringing.

Female behaviour (like almost all human behaviour) is learnt at an early age.

So think again: why might women be
1. more subtle in expressing attraction
2. more timid in rejecting sexual/romantic proposals
that is "mind-games"?

[Anonymous No.11634072]

>>11634046
i'll give you a hint:

>>11632054
>>11631469
>>11632486

[Anonymous No.11634161]

>>11634046
>But neither is, say, domestic violence and murder -- which women are subjected to more than men
I don't know a single woman who's ever been the subject of domestic abuse or murder. I've never even come close to threatening it on any girl I've been in a relationship with and yet they play these games with everyone. I know a guy who has been subject to domestic abuse from a girl, but not the other way around. The worst part was that he couldn't hit her back, because as soon as they get one bruise they can just tell the police that he started it and he's fucked. And this is kind of my whole point. The entire system is set up to protect women and give them preferential treatment whenever possible in a non-explicit way, yet women still fucking take advantage of it. If it's in their nature to do this, then I guess I don't believe they should be treated the same as how men are treated by legally.

>Because, by definition, rights are morally unconditional. The very fact that some men (eg. you?) consider their legal rights to be conditional on agreeableness to men they are intimate with -- is why the struggle to secure these rights (just like the struggle to secure the rights even men haven't always enjoyed) continues.)
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Obviously if I'm saying that women and men should be afforded different rights, it's because it's morally justifiable. If the way things are now is the result of affording men and women the same explicit rights, then affording them the same explicit rights is immoral.

>you are very much determined by your environment and upbringing
Oh it certainly has an impact on how you express your preferences, but tabula rasa is pretty widely discredited at this point in time. From what I've read, it's at the very least 50-50 nature vs nurture, if not then 60-40 leaning towards nature.

>So think again
I understand from an evolutionary standpoint why women evolved to act the way they act, but if they cant overcome this in a society where they are de jure given equal rights and de facto given preferential treatment legally, then I don't think they should be equal rights to begin with. It seems immoral and unfair to men.

[Anonymous No.11634173]

I wish women were more manly desu.

[Anonymous No.11634223]

>>11633867
>3. this is just bait though. or I hope it is. >>11632486 (You) there is nothing quite as pitiful as someone claiming to distain that which he so apparently covets.
>"I love women but they deny me. Therefore I hate women for not denying others"
Why do you insist that any criticism of women stems from wanting them too much? Can you honestly not imagine a life where you are not enslaved by your need for them?

[Anonymous No.11634236]

>>11634223
if you have no desire for women: why does them "refusing their holes" or whatever effect you at all?

[Anonymous No.11634239]

>>11634173
go to /fit/ and look for the wheyfu thread

[Anonymous No.11634249]

>>11634239
I have a strong dislike toward athletic clothes, also I hate the emphasis in genitals media influences women to focus.

[Anonymous No.11634261]

>>11634236
It doesn't, I was merely pointing out the rhetorical strategy that is so often used.

[Anonymous No.11634299]

>>11634249
Well I mean you're kind of shit out of luck then. Manly women are only manly because they workout, and girls who spend tons of time in the gym tend to wear athletic clothes

[Anonymous No.11634302]

>>11631579
Modern feminists think that there can be boys with penises and girls with vaginas, their opinions can be safely discarded.

[Anonymous No.11634312]

>>11634046
>2. more timid in rejecting sexual/romantic proposals
>that is "mind-games"?
Oh god, oh god, you've never had to deal with a toxic, advantage-grubbing girl at work or something, did you? While it's true that there are pretty great women, there are many shit-stirrers that can ruin your day even if you ignore them - especially if you make a show of ignoring them.
Anyway those toxic women always end up overreaching themselves and get screwed over so w/e lol.

[Anonymous No.11634318]

>>11634161
im gonna start with:
>I understand from an evolutionary standpoint why women evolved to act the way they act, but if they cant overcome this in a society yada yada

firstly: it kinda contradicts your other point about 60-40 nature-nurture. women have evolved to be more timid around men because their female ancestors who weren't were violently attacked. okay you understand this.

the point is that REGARDLESS of the proportion of nature-nurture that effects our behaviours -- all our behaviours are inherited. either in our genes from our parents, or via our upbringing (by our parents) and the society constructed by our predecessors.

you vastly underestimate the extent to which these behaviours are instilled in boys and girls at a young age.

true: a man who attacks a woman is punished more severely than vice versa (and this should be changed! and we can change that without stripping women of their rights!)

but a 4 year old boy who fights his fellow classmates is punished less severely than a girl. and it's the conditioning at THAT age which matters. certainly for something as "primal" as violence

[Anonymous No.11634341]

>>11634312
i have

but look,
people are shitty.
people are vapid
people are shallow
people are envious and greedy and spiteful

these are not distinctly female traits.

i think the main problem in all of this is that when you see these traits in a man -- you dont generalise (consciously or not) to men in the same way you do with women

[Anonymous No.11634376]

>>11634318
> it kinda contradicts your other point about 60-40 nature-nurture
How so?

>you vastly underestimate the extent to which these behaviours are instilled in boys and girls at a young age.
No, you vastly overestimate it. David Reimer's case is a pretty damn definitive case study on how behavioral differences between boys and girls are genetic to a significant degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

>but a 4 year old boy who fights his fellow classmates is punished less severely than a girl.
I don't think that's true at all, I spend years of my life working in childcare and little girls who got in fights didn't face any punishment that was exceptionally worse than little boys, and certainly nothing close to the way the disparity in how the legal system treats men in domestic disputes, divorce, etc.

[Anonymous No.11634400]

>>11634376
>how so

because if to the extent that our actions are determined by genetics -- we can't use the """safety""" of women now to say that their behaviour is irrational. because their behaviour is optimised for the environment of their ancestors -- which is quite dangerous

[Anonymous No.11634440]

>>11634236
It affects you by virtue of entering into the zeitgeist as a valid rhetorical strategy, when it isn't/ shouldn't be.
It's the same thing as accepting the accusation that all forms of (purported) homophobia is covert homophilia.
It's a weak strawman, and for obvious reasons, an argument made in poor faith.

[Anonymous No.11634458]

>>11634261
As he defeated – dying –
On whose forbidden ear
The distant strains of triumph
Burst agonized and clear!

i wouldn't use that rhetoric against any argument against women. but only against the "women are whores but wont shag me :( ergo i hate them" argument

you notice it's not sex they dislike. it's women having sex. specifically, women having sex not with them.

[Anonymous No.11634469]

>>11631466

[Anonymous No.11634473]

im sorry but i was literally replying to this:
>>11632486
of course this "criticism of women" stems from wanting them too much.

that's literally the whole point. he's complaining he want's women and they make their "holes unavailable" to him unless he "does what they want". this wouldnt be an issue for him -- but for his desire.

[Anonymous No.11634499]

>>11634473
women still try this tactic where it doesn't work because they assume everyone wants them, overplaying their hand.

understandably though, since it works on the majority of men.

[Anonymous No.11634529]

>>11634473
look everyone knows men are just expendable bags of shit. it's more interesting to talk about the naughty forbidden topics, and your counterpoints are boring.

[Anonymous No.11634547]

>>11631466
Lol just listen to marina and the diamonds and other thot-bands, would be much more insightful than any book because it offers you the exact sort of angst all young women feel

also virginia woolf's earlier works

schopenhauer is right but reading him wont gleam any new insights lol you retarsd

[Anonymous No.11634564]

>>11634161
>I don't know a single woman who's ever been the subject of ... murder
Yeah because they're fucking dead lmao

[Anonymous No.11634601]

>>11634564

[Anonymous No.11634643]

>>11632486
This image is so good it's giving me an existential crisis

I don't think I've ever been this btfo

[Anonymous No.11634665]

>>11632486
>>11634643
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28gvMM8KXm4

[Anonymous No.11634695]

>>11631466
Women are like realistic robots with an absolute slave mentality and a very simple soul. Men drive cars. Women ask the car to her forward by pushing down the gas pedal and causing magic to happen to them. They are entirely passive agents who can only receive. The only thing women can truly create is life. The rest is passivity or reforming something else.

There, that's women. Be polite and treat them like retarded innocent fucktoys

[Anonymous No.11634696]

>>11634529
>counterpoints are boring
can't even argue with that
not quite as boring as the points they counter, though

maybe you'd prefer this:

[Anonymous No.11634702]

>>11634695
>Men drive cars. Women ask the car to her forward by pushing down the gas pedal and causing magic to happen to them.

elaborate because what is the difference. this sounds like you just talking out your arse

[Anonymous No.11634714]

>>11634702
I'm not that guy, but there is a really good video on hypoagency by Karen Straughan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE#t=3m21

Start at 3:21 if the time thing doesn't work

[Anonymous No.11634761]

>>11634696
well jeez if le meth man says fememeism is worth anything i guess you better do what he says

[Anonymous No.11634801]

>>11634400
literally nothing said here follows at all. having some or even most of your preferences as the result of your genetics does not automatically make your behavior rational, it doesn't even make it optimized for our current environment considering they were developed under completely different conditions. You could hardly call it "optimized" either. This whole post is just nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11635158]

>>11631466

[Anonymous No.11635395]

>>11631466
better to not bother trying, and not care about women very much in general

[Anonymous No.11635600]

>>11632054
Based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11635606]

>>11635158
now that's what i call redpilled!

[Anonymous No.11635834]

>>11635158
Both bitter, and funny.

[Anonymous No.11636251]

>>11634473
>>11632486
>>11634643

Is the pain in your butts so painfull, that you can't accept his opinion? Are your worldviews destroyed becasue one man doesn't have pleasant opinion on woman? Let him believe what he wants, and live how he wants

[Anonymous No.11636287]

>>11632486
gay af

[Anonymous No.11636314]

>>11635395
but i love women :(

[Anonymous No.11636531]

>>11635606
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.11637305]

>>11632486
Yikes!

[Anonymous No.11637421]

>>11631466

The Waves for me. It highlighted the overabundance of sensory information and emotions that play a part in female life. It's why I suspect they're naturally defensive and eschew too much logical thinking (leads to overload).

I've never been a woman so I don't know if I'm right but I live happily with this belief laying every night beside my waifu, Asuka.

[Anonymous No.11637433]

>>11637421
out of curiosity, where are you from?

[Anonymous No.11637487]

[Anonymous No.11637528]

>>11637433

UK why?

[Anonymous No.11637554]

>>11637528
your ethnicity?

[Anonymous No.11637557]

>>11637554

White.

Am I being datamined?

[Anonymous No.11637562]

Women aren't singular

[Anonymous No.11637564]

>>11637557
m-maybe?

[Anonymous No.11637589]

>>11631466

[Anonymous No.11637596]

>>11632551
>FUCKING VIRGIN INCELS AMIRITE
http://triumvirateproject.tumblr.com/post/58943559281/preliminary-materials-for-a-critique-of-the-nice

[Anonymous No.11637603]

>>11637487

I kinda agree with this. I know people who play video games all day every day but are reluctant to say a game is good because they wear their taste like a badge of honour. Nerds are weird.

[Anonymous No.11637651]

>>11634302
You tried at least.

[Anonymous No.11637663]

>>11633867
>>11634046
These well considered answers are entirely wasted on a person who obviously has little first hand experience with women, and who seems a bit vindictive and full of blame because of it. It's like speaking to a brick wall that has learned its values from the Incels reddit.

[Anonymous No.11637695]

>>11637596
What the heck is this?

[Anonymous No.11637807]

>>11631466
Assemblywomen is the only right answer

[Anonymous No.11637817]

Any book on chimpanzee psychology and the history of cattle

[Anonymous No.11637935]

>>11637663
yeah i realised that

my only consolation is that: luckily it's the guys who interact with women the least that hate them the most
fortunately no woman -- and very few men for that matter -- have to talk to these people in real life

[Anonymous No.11638039]

>>11631466
Women understand power

[Anonymous No.11638538]

>>11632278
Seconded, it is a good book

[Anonymous No.11638659]

>>11632933
This is true for anyone though, i.e. wanting what you want without having to justify yourself. You just don't have to deal with most people on that level or feel like a failure at life.

Here's a secret for you, women are people just like you, and no two people are alike.

[Anonymous No.11638693]

>>11631469
This.

>>11631466
Just write a man, less motivated by sex or competition and more concerned with feeling.

[Anonymous No.11638858]

>>11637663
>>11637935
>If you don't have the same values as me and don't come to the same conclusions as me then you're a FUCKING INCEL who HATES WOMEN
It's always the same shit from you people. My Boomer dad has been married to my mom for over 30 years, they've got 3 kids together, but when I get a few too many beers in him he'll let slip that he doesn't think women should be allowed to vote. My buddy's been dating the same girl since high school and they're probably going to end up getting married, he's one of the most sexist, anti-semitic people I know (of course she also happens to be a Jew which kind of adds to the hilarity of the situation). I've had 2 long-term girlfriends in my 5 or 6 years since high school and I personally think female suffrage was a mistake. You can sit there and think sexists are virginal basement-dwellers and that they must hate women, but in my experience it's the opposite. I don't want women to be allowed to vote the same reason I don't want toddlers to be allowed to drive. And you know what? The fact that you think that only incels think this way shows that you don't have a whole lot of practical experience dealing with men.

[Anonymous No.11638883]

>>11638858
I started hating women as a virgin and only hate them more after having successfully dated several times. I don't hate individual women, really, but women as a whole are very damaged people and definitely should have nothing to do with the political process.

I'm all for equal opportunity, but we have to face the facts that 95% of women are never going to want to do anything with their lives other than be pampered parasites. It's just the way their minds work by default. Until a woman substantiates that she is capable of being treated like a full human, like a man basically, she should be treated like a child, second class citizen.

[Anonymous No.11638893]

>>11638858
This, most people keep that shit quiet.
There's no point airing society's dirty laundry in public when all that's gonna happen is people save face to protect their ego-invested positions and pretend to be angry with you about it.
Stereotypes are faux pas for good reason, they're true. All good comedy is based in reality. So long as accountability is taken away without a whim of concern about equality, hardly most people I know take it seriously and are mostly in it for the puss / company / whatever.

[Anonymous No.11638953]

>>11638893
Yeah, I don't walk around the office telling people that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or that Mexicans should all be deported or whatever. I'll talk about this kind of stuff with close friends and maybe joke about it with family, but I'm not going to bring it up with people I'm not close with because it's just not called for. The fact that you've got all of these posters in this thread screaming about muh incels kind of shows that they don't interact closely with men outside of places where you're going to meet incels, ie the internet. I mean fuck, ragging on how women have too many rights is something that guys pretty much universally agree on regardless of who they are or what they believe. Trump or Sanders supporter, black or white, rich or poor, you're going to find guys bitching about girls

[Anonymous No.11638977]

>>11634236

It's relevant to understanding women.

[Anonymous No.11639005]

>>11638893
>Stereotypes are faux pas for good reason, they're true.
What a brainlet. Are you not even aware that the post you agreed with was debunking a stereotype? Stereotypes have nothing to do with reality and everything to do the appeal they carry within a society.

[Anonymous No.11639008]

>>11639005
with the*

[Anonymous No.11639039]

There's nothing to understand. Women's prima facie is totally reactive and there's nothing behind it. Sad.

[Anonymous No.11639048]

>>11639005
>Stereotypes have nothing to do with reality and everything to do the appeal they carry within a society
Eh, a lot of stereotypes exist as heuristics that often have some truth to them.

[Anonymous No.11639175]

>>11638858
FML
listen: i can understand motives for denying women the vote etc.
but i was literally just commenting on the "women are bad because they deny me their holes" guy

like: that is an incel

your boomer dad is not an incel, but i also assume he wouldnt use that pic.>>11632486

if you think women are stupid, that doesnt entail youre an incel virgin who hates women.

but if you EXPLICITLY say you hate women BECAUSE they deny you sex -- then that literally is just being an incel virgin, right??

[Anonymous No.11639179]

>>11639039
you dont know what prima facie means lmao

[Anonymous No.11639188]

>>11639175
Neither of the posts I quoted were replying to the holes guy and none of the posts they were replying to had anything to do with the holes guy. The posts they were replying to were talking about women's behavior in relationships, not holes-posting on image boards or w/e.

[Anonymous No.11639190]

>>11638858
also just a question about women's vote:

men and women have basically the same voting habits. when they denied blacks the vote, at least they have different voting habits

i cant really see what effect denying women the vote will have

disclaimer: i dont think anyone should have the vote

[Anonymous No.11639210]

>>11639175
>but i was literally just commenting on the "women are bad because they deny me their holes" guy
Did you even read the pic? It doesn't say women are bad because they deny holes, it says they use hole denial as an rhetorical tactic in arguments. Two very different things.

Stop strawmanning sunday roast

[Anonymous No.11639214]

>>11639190
Well I don't exactly think blacks should be allowed to vote either. My ideal scenario would be sort of how it was at the beginning of the US: only land-owning white men of age. It's sort of in the vein of what the Romans did. You have to be a man (for reasons already enumerated), you have to be a member of the nation's ethnic group (in this case 'white' American), and you have to have a vested stake in the future prosperity of said nation (owning property). Democracy isn't the problem, giving the masses a say is. Democracy is fine as long as it's not run like a fucking high school popularity contest.

[Anonymous No.11639221]

>>11639188
you replied to my post.
i was replying to Mr. Holes and a guy who can't wrap his head around girl's using mind-games (which normally means either 1. basic flirting, 2. their subtle in rejection). to an autist who cant understand any non-literal modes of communication, everything is a """mind-game"""

[Anonymous No.11639230]

>>11639214
roman's did not have racial voting

also, whether you like it or not, america is not "ethnically white". why is that ethnicity singled out to control the others?

[Anonymous No.11639241]

>>11639221
I replied to this-
>>11637663
>>11637935
The second is replying to the first in agreement. The first is replying to these and saying that it's useless arguing with an incel-
>>11633867
>>11634046
Which are replying to this guy's posts, who's being called an incel-
>>11633945
>>11632933
which aren't the holes guy's posts lmao

[Anonymous No.11639247]

>>11639241
complaining about mind-games women play when flirting is pretty suggestive that you dont know how to flirt and blame women for that

[Anonymous No.11639251]

The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine. The neuroscience of female lunacy.

[Anonymous No.11639261]

>>11631473
This. The Wife of Bath's Tale and her Prologue are the best treatments of female nature in literature.
https://www.purplemotes.net/2015/08/02/wife-of-bath-criminal-justice/

[Anonymous No.11639263]

>>11639247
I mean in the post he explicitly says romantic relationships rather than just the pua type stuff /r9k/ complains about. If complaining about the stupid games girls play in relationships means you don't know how to flirt, then I guess almost no men on earth know how to flirt.

[Anonymous No.11639281]

>>11639190
This is why.

[Anonymous No.11639288]

>>11632486
TOASTED

[Anonymous No.11639310]

>>11639281
I bet immigration would be a lot higher if this was more recent

[Anonymous No.11639318]

>>11634695
Men and women receive their being/souls from two different wellsprings.

[Anonymous No.11639330]

>>11637487
Good to see worthless women can attain value by being Patrick's cocksleeve for the day.

[Anonymous No.11639333]

>>11639281
"the things that women think are important, are less important (to me, a man) than the things that men think are important"
yeah this is predictable.
"the things that not-X think are important, are less important (to me, an X) than the things that X think are important"

replace X with employer, employee, black man, old person etc and this is always true.

[Anonymous No.11639348]

>>11639281
it's completely rational to want to restrict the vote to those more similar to you, in the hope that what they desire (and thus vote for) is more similar to the things you desire.

But don't pretend that this is anything other than an attempt to increase your own political power

[Anonymous No.11639355]

>>11637562
This. The racial group matters more than the gender. You can't compare a sporty Germanic amazon to a geisha Asian doormat doll. Different kinds have different essencess.

[Anonymous No.11639356]

>>11639333
The point is that women care about being allowed to kill babies that are the result of their irresponsible behaviour above all else.

[Anonymous No.11639366]

>>11639348
>But don't pretend that this is anything other than an attempt to increase your own political power
Pretending makes it more likely to succeed though. It's all in the game.

[Anonymous No.11639431]

>>11637421
>The Waves for me. It highlighted the overabundance of sensory information and emotions that play a part in female life. It's why I suspect they're naturally defensive and eschew too much logical thinking (leads to overload).

So women are victims of an overconnected brain. Should all women have mandated corpus callosotomies?

[Anonymous No.11639480]

>>11639356
you seem to care quite a bit about abortion, though

[Anonymous No.11639488]

>>11639431
lobotomies help with suicidal depression and aggression
men suffer from both
make your own conclusions xx

[Anonymous No.11639497]

>>11639488
rent free

[Anonymous No.11639528]

>>11639497
he says, on a forum that spends about 50% of its time complaining about minorities

[Anonymous No.11639545]

>>11639528
strawman, I haven't done any of them and am a woman passing time between shifts.

[Anonymous No.11639570]

>>11638693
>Just live in a fantasy.

>I started hating women as a virgin
You're a worthhless cunt.

So here's the thing. If you look to women, they're going to show you your own uselessnesness, cause guess what. They are looking to promulgate their own existence. And if you're a fucking useless cunt, with no desire but to splurge inside some sack of meat. You are not. Amything.

[Anonymous No.11639572]

>>11639488
It would save you having to take Valproate everyday. An anti-epileptic physical procedure so we no longer have to pharmaceutical medicate female brain-noise with anti-epileptic drugs.

All women suffer extreme moods, and anti-epileptic drugs are the first-line treatment for mood disroders based on the same principle of epileptic overcommunication in the brain. Waves-anon is right!

[Anonymous No.11639577]

>>11639572
>All women suffer extreme moods

Nah.
Do you even lift bro?

[Anonymous No.11639587]

>>11639572
i've never even heard of "valproate"

is this another drug your american (((doctors))) have got you all addicted to?

also when women get moody, they don't go out and do a school-shooting or murder their wife.
they buy shoes and watch bridget jones or smth

[Anonymous No.11639622]

>>11639528

The term 'minorities', I have now concluded, purely exists to goad simple Whites into not recognising the demographic threat to their civilisations.

Its aim is unambiguously to procastinate and downplay the impending winter that faces them - "oh, it's okay, they're _minorities_, they are the non-majority and sub-group", the term implies a kind of essential and unchanging quality of lesserness to nonWhites, effectively shielding Whites who use the term from realising that based on the current trajectory it is Whites who will be getting brutalised in less than half a century from now in the countries they founded. The thought does not even enter their minds, in this way they are almost a kind of descriptive White supremacist.

Only misunderstanding will come to those who understand definitions in terms of their circumstantial as opposed to essential characteristics. The term may be validly used for sexual minorities, which, due to selective pressures, will always form a fringe population, but such can clearly not be said for other races.

[Anonymous No.11639625]

>>11639480
I don't desu

[Anonymous No.11639648]

>>11639622
if you consider the races to be Whites and Non-white's then sure, Non-white's will be in the majority in america within 50 years.

But Non-white is not a race. The end state of america will be a nation of races none with a majority.

But america has always been a fuck-pit of random races so dont ret-con your history as some ancient nordic homeland.

unless youre not american, in which case i dont think non-whites will ever be a majority

[Anonymous No.11639654]

>>11639622
I think you're projecting because of your own reception of the term.
Or you're a nut

[Anonymous No.11639679]

the sun tzu

[Anonymous No.11639706]

>>11635158
>that last paragraph
I've seen it happen.

[Anonymous No.11639723]

>>11639587
>she's untreated
There it is.

>>11639577
Yes brah psyched up for serratus Saturday. Why are you in denial about women, NAWALT?

[Anonymous No.11639748]

>>11639648

>The USA will not a majority-anything in the future

Irrelevant. The term as it is used in sole reference to non-Whites implies a kind of essential quality of majority to the Whites, which simply is not true. Additionally, using the relative definition of majority, that being the largest of all groups, Mestizos and Amerindians could easily become the majority in the USA given the right pressures. Your cavalier lack of apprehension at the numbers only supports my case.

Additionally, due to power dynamics, the White former populations acts as a rallying point for all nonWhite races in the USA to work against. Black, brown, yellow - they all vote blue.

>america has always been a fuck-pit of random races

89% White does not sound like a "fuck-pit" to me, but you are entitled to your standards.

>Whites will only become non-majority in USA

Majority nonWhite immigration almost necessitates an eventual White absolute minority, for it'd require not only stable but considerably high White birth rates to offset such demographic changes.

>>11639654

Yes, I used to use this term, and in doing so gave myself the relief described when I was a leftist.

Even if one can find another emotional reason to use the term you have not provided a compelling alternative, nor can one deny that it is simply a poor choice of word. Definitions should not be based on circumstantial properties. Simply call these people what they are.

[Anonymous No.11639761]

>>11639587
You do know those aren't moods at all and specifically not if it's about planned, cold-blooded crimes like school shootings.

[Anonymous No.11639764]

>>11639748
>cavalier lack of apprehension
youre assuming i give a fuck if america becomes less white.

let me be clear:

i dont

it's just social darwinism, maybe yall are supposed to die off?

[Anonymous No.11639772]

>>11639570
nice projecting, incel

[Anonymous No.11639774]

>>11639761
so being a moody self-pitying loser 100% of the time is better than being moody 30% of the time -- because it's more predictable?
Hmm

[Anonymous No.11639783]

>>11639772
>>11639570

im the guy who's been arguing with most of these incels, but even i agree that this sounds very projecty.

like, youre probably not wrong, but the way it's written is very projecty. not sure how i can tell, but i can.

[Anonymous No.11639788]

What about books on understanding transwomen? I want to dom a trans and see her blush at being called a good girl.

[Anonymous No.11639789]

>>11639783
i think it's because it reads like a schizophrenic would say to himself. not like an actual reply to a person standing in front of him

[Anonymous No.11639796]

>>11639748
>>11639648

By the way, here's a graphical representation of your racial "fuck-pit".

Also keep in mind that it was literally illegal to be Black in Oregan before and for some time after its founding as a state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws#1857_law

Quite the racial 'fuck-pit', huh?

>>11639764

Okay, so you aren't in denial, you're just one of two other things:

>1 Someone who despises his own race
>2 A mildly supremacist nonWhite

I don't think there can be a productive conversation from this point onwards if either of those two statements are true.

[Anonymous No.11639819]

>>11639796
>3, i care about spreading my genes. not about spreading the genes of my neighbour Pasty Jones just because he's white

white supremacy is literally just cucking for other dicks the same colour as yours

grow up you weirdo

[Anonymous No.11639826]

>>11639748
>that image
holy fuck the purpose of democracy is entirely shattered by multiracialism, im pretty sure that sheer degree of predictability and consistency wasnt what was originally intended. you can pick up such a large voter block simply by pandering to one demographic or another, its like you dont even have to try for the majority or even talk about policies beyond racial ones.

[Anonymous No.11639837]

>>11639819
the origin of culture in general is by definition ethnocentric. the desire, as a cultural trait, to see your kin survive is not something irrational or inconsistent at all.

[Anonymous No.11639855]

>>11639819

Non ethno-centric behaviours are not conducive to Darwinistic survival, even though this may seem counter-intuitive to modern Westerners.

Those who act in an egalitarian manner reproduce less than those who do not. We know this for two reasons:

>1 Humans are 'racist', therefore there must have been selective pressures in the past to favour one's own
>2 Using predictive algorithms and similar studies, it is shown that genes that promote ethno-centric behaviour come to dominate their gene pools.

Regarding 2, the order of strategies most heavily selected for go:

>Ethno-centric
>Humanitarian
>Selfish
>Traitorous

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U_u5hhphcMhAp1FwT2KPa0uvbS9UOcMz/view?ts=5b17c5b3
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/

[Anonymous No.11639860]

>>11639774
Yea anon, because being a moody self-pitying loser is ingrained in our male brains y'know?
Yea, those "rich, successful men" like Bill Gates or Elon Musk. You know them? Total losers senpai, they're pissing their eyes every night in their waifu-pillow because that's simply how their brains were built.
>predictability
You're gonna say emotional stability isn't important or what?

[Anonymous No.11639864]

>>11639826
>pandering to one demographic or another

surely this will be starkest effect when one group is the dominant voting block?
eg: the republicans pandering to whites, or the democrats back when they promised to keep slavery etc

>>11639837
well, no desire is irrational or inconsistent.

beliefs are inconsistent. and an action is rational if it achieves your desires (supposing your beliefs to be true).

but i wouldnt say white people are my "kin".
i have more cultural kinship with a black englishman than a slav.

also does you defintion of "culture" includes ethnicity? or does your definition of race depend on culture?

because i would say culture is a set of behaviours, beliefs and artistic tastes, a language and laws maybe.
and ethnicity is genetics.
so, according to my use of the terms, they are not "by definition" linked. how are you using these terms?

[Anonymous No.11639879]

>>11639860
>implying i was generalising to all men

2. i would rather be sad 50% of the time than 100% of the time, despite the former being more unstable. i cant fault you if you'd rather the latter

[Anonymous No.11639892]

>>11639864

>Surely will be starkest when there is a majority

If there is a clear majority, then the parties can gain popularity by apppealing to different classes, ideologies, etc. That's still bad, mind you, but it's no where near as bad as proxy racial conflict. Lee Kuan Yew expresses the view perfectly, and unlike you, his entire life was dedicated to making a multiracial country successful. He was a world-class leader.

>>11639864

Have you ever played civ 5? If you haven't, don't worry, but otherwise I can explain how race influences culture through reference to one of the game's mechanics.

[Anonymous No.11639897]

>>11639892

He turned a multiracial backwater into a 1st world economic hub of Oceania, for reference.

[Anonymous No.11639901]

>>11639892
no i dont play video games.
except i did play fifa when i was a kid.

also im not saying race doesnt influence culture. im saying they are not linked "by defintion" which is what you said

but sure tell me your analogy

[Anonymous No.11639911]

>>11639879
>implying i was generalising to all men
In which case, again, those aren't moods. Moods are just daily dispositions, they don't raise your whole spirit as a whole if you're a loser fembot, they're only fertile grounds for this or that sort of emotion.

[Anonymous No.11639912]

>>11639897
but singapore is far better than all it's monoethnic neighbours -- so surely that just supports my view that multiracialism isnt at all disadvantageous

[Anonymous No.11639927]

>>11639911
do you disdain emotions?
this is (nominally I know) a literature board.
i'd've thought you wouldn't disparage "moods" when most writers have been moody as fuck. far more "emotional", far more "feminine" than your average exo-hetro lad^(tm)

[Anonymous No.11639949]

>>11639901

In the game, you influence other countries by tourism, and to a certain extent they are forced to comply with your social policies due to its influence over their citizenry. So, you can think of it as adding +5 culture units per year, or what have you.

To the extent that any cultural attitude is heritable, the races, unless dominated by another race's culture generation on generation, will deviate slightly from its influences.

Let's take violence for example. X group commits more violence than Y group, but Ys frown upon violence and so it is socially stigmitised. Due to the genetics of X, however, they commit more crime.

If then left to depart from one another, X would commit more crime. Thereby, crime would be a bit more normalised and accepted on the first generation. It's like the +5 culture from the Y group has been taken away, and so the X group starts to influence itself. Even if violence is only 40% heritable, or similarly low, it will necessary tend towards the genetic mean 40% of the way with each generation.

>>11639912

Well, keep in mind that the country is not run in a democratic fashion, and the Han Chinese essentially dominate. Also keep in mind that Indonesia is also highly ethnically diverse, albeit not racially.

Now, looking at Singapore specifically might suggest that, but we're only dealing with a sample size of ~4 countries. Looking at the whole world more broadly, ethnic diversity is inversely correlated with economic wellbeing.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/iq-diversity-and-national-wealth-regressions/

[Anonymous No.11639960]

>>11639912
Singapore is better because it is 75% Han Chinese and the neighbours are low IQ Muslim jungle Asians.

If you would take a small African country and replace 75% of the population with Danes it would also become the best country in the region, and it wouldn't be because of the other 25%.

[Anonymous No.11639974]

>>11639949

Also, maintaining culture as we know it is incredibly difficult.

Take rule of law - universal is not just something that if desired spawns from the air. Rule of law requires a certain level of economic wellbeing to run the necessary court system, a well-maintained education system, a lack of corruption in politics, and well-designed political infrastructure.

Even if Sub-Saharan Blacks wanted property rights, consistent law, and a lack of corruption amongst the police, I don't think it would be possible for them to create such a system given their national iq.

>>11639960

Well, I guess you could say the jungle asians have certainly benefited from the Han Chinese, even if they live in a foreigner's country.

[Anonymous No.11639989]

>>11639974
>Even if Sub-Saharan Blacks wanted property rights, consistent law, and a lack of corruption amongst the police

so something europeans have often gone without for most of history. big think

[Anonymous No.11639998]

>>11639348
>implying this isn't also true of the opposite camp
Do you actually think American Democrats care about Mexicans? Not people who are registered Democrats--actual politicians.
Trying to use the world stage to gerrymander votes at the expense of the citizenry is the slimiest thing you could possibly do, and that's all it is.

[Anonymous No.11639999]

>>11639911
>whole spirit as a whole
God I'm so tired. Good night 5chan
>>11639927
Don't buy into the STEMfag meme, kiddo. I don't have anything against emotions and in fact I'm not even the original guy who (ironically, I hope) recommended valproic acid to you.

[Anonymous No.11640008]

>>11639999
>gets quads
>5chan
Fuck I wasted them. GN

[Anonymous No.11640029]

>>11639974
>Well, I guess you could say the jungle asians have certainly benefited from the Han Chinese, even if they live in a foreigner's country.
Sure, and the 'refugees' in Europes greatly benefit from the natives that pay for their welfare. Meanwhile the Europeans enjoy much increased violent crime rates, terrorist attacks and general unrest.

Multi-ethnic societies tend to improve the quality of life of the worst ethnic groups and diminish those of the best.

[Anonymous No.11640051]

>>11640029
>Multi-ethnic societies tend to improve the quality of life of the worst ethnic groups and diminish those of the best.

those poor white american slave owners huh

[Anonymous No.11640071]

>>11639572
why don't women just take adderall? Wouldn't that help them focus on one thing and quiet down bipolar? Pretty much all anti-anxiety and "stabilizing" drugs aside from beta blockers are death sentences.

[Anonymous No.11640072]

>>11640051
Working class whites actually suffered from having to compete with unpaid slave labour.

And whites in America still suffer from the the presence of blacks to this day in the form of financial drain, affirmitive action and lots of (violent) crime.

[Anonymous No.11640073]

>>11639989

European conception of law dates back to the Roman Republic. Clearly Europeans have progressed, I'm saying that other races cannot mimic Europeans in this regard, even if they wanted to.

>>11640051

Well, slavery did delay industrialisation, and the average White Southerner's quality of life is severely diminished by the current presence of Blacks.

[Anonymous No.11640082]

>>11640073

*that certain other races

[Anonymous No.11640089]

>>11640073
did nazi german protect property rights, have consistent law, and lack of corruption amongst the police.

or (if you support that regime) did the soviets?

[Anonymous No.11640109]

>>11640089

Okay, I will give an analogy to try and communicate what I mean.

Let's say you have two high jumpers - one is 7 feet tall whereas the other is 4'5", and let's say they have ten jumps each at 2 meters.

Clearly the taller jumper may fail to jump over the limit from time to time, but the problem is that the 4'5" is never going to be able to get past that length. It is not even an option for him.

So, to an extent, being of a certain height is going to be a prerequisite for a certain height that can be reached. Being of a certain race is going to be a prerequisite for a kind of culture that can be reached.

[Anonymous No.11640157]

>>11639190
Talked like a true muttrican

[Anonymous No.11640158]

>>11640073
yo bro is that rome: total war? i was thinking about copin that for ipad, its only like ten bucks

[Anonymous No.11640163]

>>11639190
>he doesn't know what happened when women got the vote

bro ever heard of prohibition? that was women tryin to stop their husbands from going out and getting drunk via the ballot, it didn't end well

[Anonymous No.11640211]

>>11640158

It's Civilisation Five, and you should buy it if you're a general fan of turn-based strategy games, but if you're into history, it isn't for you. It's kind of pleb-tier, and has virtually no historical grounding other than trivial unique traits to each civilistion. E.g. America can purchase land for half the usual price, in reference to the Louisiana purchase, and England's ships can travel farther than everyone else's.

You can get mods to make it more realistic, or alternatively you can get mods to play as Star Wars factions or the Imperium of Man, etc. I recommend that if you're into strategy in general, you should get it, but if you want a strategy game for the history, you should buy HOI 4, Europa Universalis, or Rome: Total War.

[Anonymous No.11640228]

>thread about women
>American posting hours arrive
>issue is sidelined and discussion dissolve into white - black issue and your typical amerilard butthurt over slaves their dumb hillbilly of an ancestors brought to country

[Anonymous No.11640229]

>>11634249
try /outside/ women

[Anonymous No.11640230]

>>11640211
my favorite strategy game is homm3 to be honest, i readily admit to being a pleb of strategy games, i only really go hard in shooters and then im only slightly above average

[Anonymous No.11640266]

>>11640228
>dumb poor hillbillies started the transatlantic slave trade
Huh. What about--
>dumb poor hillbillies bought slaves, when the cost of a slave at the lowest would have been equivalent to +10k USD now
Huh.

You're right about the thread derailment in spite of that though.

[Anonymous No.11640277]

>>11640230

Well, what's good about strategy is that you can really learn to improve yourself, whereas in shooters I think that there is more of a ceiling where some players just don't have the dexterity to improve themselves beyond a certain point.

Yeah, civ 5 might not be your cup of tea if you like the old-school historical strategy games. What's great about Civ, however, are the stupid memey mods you can play as.

"Civ 5: OP Civilisations Ai Death Match"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKqV1v_kCE

>>11640266
>>11640228

Yeah, sorry about the thread derailment. To relate it back to the thread, Civ 5's ai is a good means of understanding women. They're designed to create perpetual chaos and drama, and so you have to be willing to constantly shift alliances in order to not become diplomatically isolated.

[Anonymous No.11640397]

The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi