How come women can't write?

File: 129 KB, 822x548, 1278090658202.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:50:08 2010 No.1314221 [Reply] [Original]

How come women can't write?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:53:08 2010 No.1314230 Bad troll is bad. Frankenstein.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:54:08 2010 No.1314232 They can. You are just dismissing them based on gender.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:54:08 2010 No.1314234 Oh boy, this thread again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:54:08 2010 No.1314233 we could easily write men right off the planet. but we're too busy using them instead >pants get tight

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:55:08 2010 No.1314235 no, that thread popped when my pants got too tight...

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:55:08 2010 No.1314236 Ursula was the only one who good write well on a consistent basis. Ignore everyone else OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:57:08 2010 No.1314240 what about maya angelou and oprah winfrey?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 01:58:08 2010 No.1314241 >>1314230 The whole book was bawwwing drama

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 02:07:08 2010 No.1314251 Murasaki Shikibu Yoko Ogawa Ichiyo Higuchi Fumiko Enchi Sawako Ariyoshi Are some good Japanese female authors you could try out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 02:08:08 2010 No.1314254 >>1314233 i think you suddenly became fat, time to go anorexic

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 02:09:08 2010 No.1314257 >>1314251 No I am not reading your shitty anime books. Go back to /a/, you retarded virgin

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 02:10:08 2010 No.1314260 >>1314257 wat. Most of them wrote before TV existed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 02:18:08 2010 No.1314280 Woolf and O'Connor /thread

>>	anonymous Sat Nov 27 04:09:08 2010 No.1314385 Margaret Atwood

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 04:25:08 2010 No.1314402 File: 90 KB, 320x337, carson_mccullers.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 04:31:08 2010 No.1314404 >>1314402 <333

>>	GuileSloan !V/9puJlJEs Sat Nov 27 04:35:08 2010 No.1314408 >>1314230 Frankenstein was horrible. I liked the idea but the actually writing was horrid.

>>	anonymous Sat Nov 27 04:40:08 2010 No.1314413 >>1314408 It's important in the argument though because she basically beat Percy Shelley and Lord Byron in the "who can write the best supernatural thriller" competition.

>>	Ralph Wiggum !!RbKRCS+NEzU Sat Nov 27 04:56:08 2010 No.1314422 Dragonlance. (At least part of it)

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 04:58:08 2010 No.1314425 >>1314280 With Virginia Woolf, you've proved the OP's point. /thread indeed

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 05:15:08 2010 No.1314447 >>1314422 Speaking of fantasy, Susanna Clarke.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 05:40:08 2010 No.1314473 While we're on the topic does anyone want to suggest some good books written by women. Just realized I don't own many. Oh and OP, don't forget Sue Townsend.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 05:41:08 2010 No.1314475 George Eliot

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 06:10:08 2010 No.1314499 Ayn Rand

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 06:12:08 2010 No.1314501 HAVE ANY OF YOU READ A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN?! Stop being an ignorant fuck, OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 06:26:08 2010 No.1314508 Part of the problem is feminism. Talented female writers feel the need to pick up the feminist torch and thus squander their talent Greer-esque drivel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 06:36:08 2010 No.1314523 >>1314508 God forbid a woman might have a political agenda. And men certainly can't write feminist novels.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 06:41:08 2010 No.1314531 File: 535 KB, 800x586, kate-beaton.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 06:51:08 2010 No.1314544 >>1314523 It's not bad that female authors might have political agendas. It's just that most female authors seem to have the exact same cause, and it gets boring as hell to read after awhile. Which is why I actually appreciate Ayn Rand to an extent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 06:59:08 2010 No.1314557 File: 23 KB, 386x350, 1228378906303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1314531 This makes me laugh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:05:08 2010 No.1314565 >>1314473 DAT ADRIAN MOLE

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:10:08 2010 No.1314574 >>1314544 Maybe the issue is searching for the phrase "Female authors"?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:26:08 2010 No.1314605

>>1314523

>God forbid a woman might have a political agenda.

Political agendas can ruin any trace of enjoyability in a book. Just look at Ayn Rand.

>And men certainly can't write feminist novels.

He didn't say they couldn't, but women are more likely to write a feminist novel than men and you know it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:30:08 2010 No.1314609 >>1314605 so what? most readers are women anyways... in any civilized country that is

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:31:08 2010 No.1314611

>>1314605
That's bullshit. I've read more novels with a feminist agenda by men than by women. Look at the Tiffany Aching series as an example; there's no way Pratchett could write without a feminist agenda while having a female lead (there'd hopefully be an outcry).

Since there are more big name male writers, and feminism is generally accepted as "correct", you have probably read more male feminist authors yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:32:08 2010 No.1314614 >>1314605 >He didn't say they couldn't, but women are more likely to write a feminist novel than men and you know it. And women are more likely to be treated unfairly for being a woman than men for being men.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:41:08 2010 No.1314624

>>1314614

>And women are more likely to be treated unfairly for being a woman than men for being men.

What a crock of shit. Both men and women are negatively affected by gender roles in different ways. Women by being underestimated, men by being expected to be expendable, self-sacrificing slaves to the welfare of "women and children". Not to mention getting fucked over in the courts.

Even if what you said was true, your statement would do absolutely nothing to refute my statement that women are more likely to be feminists writers than men.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 07:51:08 2010 No.1314633

>>1314611

>That's bullshit. I've read more novels with a feminist agenda by men than by women.

Which doesn't necessarily mean men are more likely to be feminist writers than women proportionally. Just that most of the big names in writing are men.

>Look at the Tiffany Aching series as an example; there's no way Pratchett could write without a feminist agenda while having a female lead (there'd hopefully be an outcry).

What about Twilight? I certainly wouldn't call that a feminist novel, despite having a female protagonist.

>Since there are more big name male writers, and feminism is generally accepted as "correct", you have probably read more male feminist authors yourself.

I'd like to see a survey showing that over 50% of men agree with feminism before believing it is generally accepted as "correct" (obviously a majority of women are going to accept it because it is female-centric and favours their interests over that of men)

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:21:08 2010 No.1314693

They can write.

Really, I think the reason men tend to be more celebrated writers has a lot more to do with men and popular literary forms than women. The average intelligent male seems to have access to a wholly profound level of dis-satisfaction and yearning that crystallizes well into a novel. I don't mean to suggest they're capable of an emotional depth women aren't, just that their natural emotional makeup and outlook generally tends to come closer to producing something in tune with what the whole tradition of the novel seems to be about - you could kind of reduce my argument to "men have a tendency to look at the world and draw grand conclusions about the human condition that women do not". I'm not saying women can't learn to look like that, I'm just saying that it's not really the first place a female writer looks.

Considering the shit thats peddled to them by society, it makes sense that women end up producing things they've become conditioned to like. Shitty romance novels or whatever you want to level at them.

tl;dr - the entire tradition of commenting on the human condition is based in the experience and outlook of men, and therefore it's of no surprise that women don't always fit well into the history of literature they've inherited. I suspect when our culture becomes even less patriarchal and abandons even more of its traditions, women will be able to alter that vision. But now they have to conform to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:23:08 2010 No.1314695 I wish Harlequin would stop hiring all female writers that come into the business. This is why the female author market sucks, they are all trained to write trash.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:28:08 2010 No.1314698

>>1314633
Twilight's written by a woman, so she has the "it's fine for me to be non-feminist since I'm a woman" card. However, as a series it is, apparently, feminist (Bella develops a backbone and doesn't have to define herself by one of two men later on).

>I'd like to see a survey showing that over 50% of men agree with feminism before believing it is generally accepted as "correct"
You're mistaken if you think that would tell you anything. Don't need a majority of people to have something as "accepted". Also, you don't understand feminism, as evidenced by your next sentence.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:29:08 2010 No.1314700

>>1314624
I'm amused that there are certain women in my English class who like to make a big stink about feminism, and yet, I shit you not - I have heard more than one of them complain about a) men not paying for dates and b) saying that it's men's duty to fight on the front line because they're physically stronger, and that as women, they shouldn't be expected to, based of course, purely on science, and therefore not an inequality worth examining.

Also, ignorant twat that the above guy responded to, go listen to a single fathers group and continue to claim men aren't fucking prejudiced against. If female sitcom characters were as negatively-stereotypically female as the male characters were negatively-stereotypically male, society would, all at once, drop its shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:35:08 2010 No.1314710 >>1314700 >go listen to the white middle class males whine about how they're the most victimised group in society No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:35:08 2010 No.1314711 They are too emotional. The question should be, "Why can't straight people write?"

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:36:08 2010 No.1314712 >>1314710 4/10, you've made me want to slap your shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:39:08 2010 No.1314714 >>1314712 I'm not trolling, that's the honest truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:40:08 2010 No.1314715 >>1314700 Have you seen the sitcom Two And A Half Men

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:41:08 2010 No.1314718 I usually just dismiss them based on gender. To be completely honest I don't think I've ever finished a book that was written by a female author, aside from Harry Potter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:42:08 2010 No.1314720 >>1314710 You are a perfect example of my point. You have stabbed your own argument in the face. This is why no current gender-study or feminist thought spouts the shit you're spouting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:44:08 2010 No.1314722 >>1314715 Are you implying that either Charlie or Alan aren't incredible negative and harmful stereotypes? Because they are, and you'd be wrong.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:45:08 2010 No.1314723

>>1314700
dude, just because you are in the lowest strata of the most priviledged sexual and ethnic caste IN THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD it doesnt mean all women are fucking evil and society is manipulated by them to torment you.
Get your shit together.

We earn higher wages, we are easier excused for the stupid shit we do, we can do all the fun things and by that even increase our reputation as manly men.

didn't your mother breast-feed you or what is your deal?
so what if many women are stupid and opinionated. thats not a sex thing, thats the human condition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:45:08 2010 No.1314724 File: 8 KB, 493x402, 1287509357720.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1314722 >harmful

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:47:08 2010 No.1314727 >>1314722 I'm not sure the women in the show ar e any better. Just.. IMO

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:47:08 2010 No.1314728

>>1314698

>Also, you don't understand feminism, as evidenced by your next sentence.

No, I just differ in my opinion of what I believe feminism genuinely represents, as opposed to most feminists themselves. Feminism is not synonymous with gender equality, if it was it wouldn't favour a specific gender in it's title and wouldn't concern itself primarily with the suffrage of only one gender.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:47:08 2010 No.1314729 >>1314718 Rowling was right to go the initials route; God knows I probably wouldn't have read it if there was a woman's name on the cover.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:47:08 2010 No.1314730

>>1314693
Wow, you really got me thinking about this. Perhaps the gender disparity in literary circles is simply due to the medium having been invented by men, for men. Perhaps the female mind is wired so differently that it warrants a completely different text-type to allow its total expression.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 27 08:47:08 2010 No.1314731 File: 45 KB, 335x475, white-men-cant-jump.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:50:08 2010 No.1314732 >>1314722 > implying that not everything about that show is sooo terribly clicheed that its not even funny anymore seriously, listening to moody, drunk new jersey construction workers on a monday afternoon is more fun and less stupid than that show.

Ralph Wiggum !!RbKRCS+NEzU Sat Nov 27 08:50:08 2010 No.1314733

>>1314722
I believe he was implying that they are, i.e, you know, agreeing with you, which I would venture to do as well.

I think that the slovenly male, with such attributes as a lack of empathy, compassion and intelligence is a stereotype so omnipresent in popular culture today that it acts as a sort of blanket to justify the degrees to which some feminists will strive. I also think that a lot of women don't really understand what the hell feminism is, and that they use it to justify their own inability to deal with life. This doesn't mean that I'm saying every feminist is a mentally unstable sociopath with daddy issues; I have a couple of female friends who are feminists themselves, and who display none of the typically frowned upon characteristics of a volatile, penis-hating feminist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:51:08 2010 No.1314734 >>1314729 Connie Willis is also pretty good. I would have read her a long time ago if I hadn't known she was a woman. So there, two good female authors, and they both write fantasy. Therefore, females are only good at writing fantasy.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:52:08 2010 No.1314736

>>1314723
Not that guy, but... if you were attuned to any level of true knowledge in the issue you wouldn't be capable of using the term "manly men" without some form of derision, disgust, or in the least, irony.

Go do some reading on contemporary feminist thought. You're really arguing from a position that become outdated before the turn of the millenium.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:53:08 2010 No.1314737 >>1314733 I think that a lot of women don't understand what feminism is, and that's why most of them aren't feminists

Ralph Wiggum !!RbKRCS+NEzU Sat Nov 27 08:57:08 2010 No.1314740

>>1314737
Before I go any further, it's very late where I live and I'm tired as hell, so I can't really think very clearly.

That's a valid point. 'Feminist women' really represents a minority; I wasn't trying to state that feminism is an imminent threat closing around our throats, rather that it's often misunderstood and misused to some degree.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 08:58:08 2010 No.1314741

>>1314730
Pretty much. Of course, it's not only women who could do this. Any writer would be doing the world a favor by essentially abandoning the entirety of literary tradition - theres the whole dread over what comes after postmodernism, the death of the novel, etc. I think in a modern age it would be inevitable that whatever supersedes the novel and every other popular literary current as the dominant mode of expression would be gender-neutral.

The difficulty though, is in starting something new when all there is to build from is the previous tradition. Just doesn't seem like it could happen any time soon.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:01:08 2010 No.1314742

>>1314698

>Twilight's written by a woman, so she has the "it's fine for me to be non-feminist since I'm a woman" card.

So women should be allowed to consider the merits of feminism and accept or reject the movement... but men have to accept it or be labelled sexist? Wtf.

>However, as a series it is, apparently, feminist (Bella develops a backbone and doesn't have to define herself by one of two men later on).

I haven't seen the later sequels (my ex-girlfriend dragged me along to the first one >.>) and I don't intend to, but nevertheless the first instalment demonstrates that having a female lead does not necessarily mean a certain book or movie is feminist.

>You're mistaken if you think that would tell you anything. Don't need a majority of people to have something as "accepted".

Then what defines "accepted" with regards to highly subjective issues such as political, moral and social movements?

>Also, you don't understand feminism, as evidenced by your next sentence.

My last post was a bit fuzzy on this one, so I'm going to clear up what I mean. I believe feminism favours men over women because it concerns itself disproportionately with the suffering of women with little or no attention to discrimination against males. Secondly, by naming your movement after women you are by definition female-centric. Feminists cannot claim to represent liberation and gender equality for both genders if they label themselves and practice as only advocate's of women's rights. It's like calling a general racial equality movement "blackism".

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:03:08 2010 No.1314743

>>1314736
> implying I didnt use it with some form of irony

the point was that even if the stereotypes ascribed to the male gender are forcing men into uncomfortable positions, they are by far not as bad in consequence as the other way around for women.
Therefore a man complaining about them seems petty and self-righteous. We are still the fucking priveledged.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:03:08 2010 No.1314744 >>1314742 Oh and for the record, I don't agree with OP either.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:15:08 2010 No.1314756

>>1314743
>the point was that even if the stereotypes ascribed to the male gender are forcing men into uncomfortable positions, they are by far not as bad in consequence as the other way around for women.
Therefore a man complaining about them seems petty and self-righteous. We are still the fucking priveledged.

You're discounting the progress made by feminists. The point is this: women have a voice, however bad things are for them. That is not what I'm arguing. Men do not. Masculine issues in society will never be resolved until they have that voice.

Saying, "Oh, but women have it worse, so we can't complain" is ignorant and absurd. More than one system of empowerment can be moving at once, you know - also, your very posts prove that men DO need to be empowered, that they don't believe they're allowed to speak out about any injustice that comes their way. Society has castrated men of their voice by saying they have no right to complain, just as you are doing. How do you not see the long term social damage that could do?

Even if men never had a single problem to deal with, ever - which is certainly not the case - they still REQUIRE a voice that will be listened to. Arguing otherwise is absurd.

Can I ask what your politics are? You seem the type to be the "well, why are you afraid of intrusions into privacy if you've got nothing to hide?" guy, incapable. among other things, of seeing things in terms of the effects they might have on a larger scale.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:32:08 2010 No.1314770

>>1314756
thats like saying "baw, those poor 19th century capitalists, all dependant on pauperized working class cheap labour and profits, chaining themselves to a spiral that will never satisfy their needs. At least the masses have unions and socialist parties. Entrepreneurs should have their own revolution and realize that they are stigmatized by those mean pamphlets spread around in the barracks and everybody will be finally equal".

well, its not precisely like that, but in the end you fool yourself into trying to uphold the male superiority by grouphugging and single-father happenings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:37:08 2010 No.1314774 >>1314770 >implying men as a social group exploit women as one >implying it's the 1950's Okay, wow. I've been arguing with a looney. Feel free to step into reality sometime. And yes, you're right. It is nothing like that.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:38:08 2010 No.1314778

>>1314756
> Can I ask what your politics are? You seem the type to be the "well, why are you afraid of intrusions into privacy if you've got nothing to hide?" guy, incapable. among other things, of seeing things in terms of the effects they might have on a larger scale.

I am not that guy at all. I lean towards the left, grew up in a union environment with my mother a feminist marxist in her younger years and my father a somewhat conservative social democrat.
Today pecuniary circumstances allow me to live a life of study and social safety, yet I still vote for the policies that I think are morally right, even if they inconvenience me: against govt intrusion into privacy, checking police authority, for taxation and extensive transfer payments.
And I am fed up with everybody saying 'those poor boys, they need special education or they will fall behind the girls, who are way better adapted to our modern labour market with all their chatty bullshit".

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:41:08 2010 No.1314783 >>1314774 >yfw you realize you've been trolled?

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:42:08 2010 No.1314784

>>1314774
In fact I was not the guy you were talking to before.
And in fact I was implying its the 1870s.

And I am sorry that you apparently failed to see the hilarious marxism-jokes I made. I also admit stretched relevancy a bit just in order to make fun of you.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:51:08 2010 No.1314796

>>1314770
DEAD ON BRO

lets build up an extensive police force in order to keep wimenz and niggers on the low and not interfere with the extraction cycles.
also, make them wanna forget about it by having them consume stupid shit for no reason.

thinking 'bout that makes me realize, we already have all that. we fucking rule

U S A

U S A

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 09:53:08 2010 No.1314800 > thread starts with stupid premise > turns into chewed up, yet somewhat worthwhile discussion > then turns more shitty than the original premise would lead you to assume

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 27 10:01:08 2010 No.1314811

You guys have had your fun,
now it is time for some Schopenhauer.

>"Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes."

-Arthur Schopenhauer

chokenspit !!iLmPwU91Vdd Sat Nov 27 10:04:08 2010 No.1314817
File: 60 KB, 417x500, schop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1314811

Hey Faggots,

My name is Schopenhauer, and I exist because of our interconnected status within this metaphysical construct. All of you are Hypothetical, Matter-recognized, impedances on the eternal nature of mindness who spend every second of their meaningless, yet quaint existence looking at that which chooses to gaze upon them. You are everything bad in the world, as percieved by a greater majority of the moral sphere. Honestly, have any of you ever even fucking read The World As Will and Representation? I mean, I guess it's fun being completely unaware of the vast cosmic existance that pervades our very souls, deeming our own actions petty and inconsequential, playing to our own insecurities, but you all take this to a whole new level. This is even worse than that douche, Hegel.

Don't be a limited physical construct. Just hit me with your best shot (assuming that it exists within an existential realm of which I myself can percieve, if not interact with). I'm pretty much perfect (suck it, Descartes!). I was captain of the debate team (master-debater class of 1804) , and wrote a book. A fucking book. What books have you written, other than "jacking off to naked drawn japanese people FOR DUMMIES"? My metaphysical treatises are the foundation for that which influenced the likes of Nietzsche, Wagner, and a whole mess of germans. I have a hot bitch or ten in my stables at all times ("women are by nature meant to obey" who said that, faggots? Not you, that's fucking who.). You are nothing but an endless interplay of images and desires.

Thanks for listening, as if it mattered.

Pic Related: It's me and my fucking boss sideburns.

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 10:13:08 2010 No.1314832

>>1314710
White middle class women's self-obsessed, self-aggrandizing whinging is pretty much what feminism has been for a long time. Society is more likely to conceptualize women as victims (and women are more likely to conceptualize themselves as victims) because of the way we view them as the "weaker sex" in need of protection, it's also much more socially acceptable for women to complain about their problems than it is for men. This exploitation of gender perceptions is all feminists have been doing for years, it's so deeply engrained into our psychology most people don't even notice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 10:20:08 2010 No.1314843 >>1314800 >thread starts with stupid premise >turns into chewed up, yet somewhat worthwhile discussion >then turns more shitty than the original premise would lead you to assume >pants get tight

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 27 10:20:08 2010 No.1314845 >>1314817 lol

Anonymous Sat Nov 27 11:04:08 2010 No.1314908

why girls can't write 101:

generalization needing to be accepted for the argument: famous female authors have looked up to the famous female authors before them.

if you follow the line back and back and back, they women had less schooling and so sucked more at writing. then their proteges looked up to them for being writers and bustling into a man's world, and so they unconsciously emulated their writing style. etc etc and then you have margaret atwood's amazing ability for commas that made me throw away the handmaid's tale.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 11:31:08 2010 No.1314941 >>1314817 chokenspit, you're a dumbass. That's not a picture of Schopenhauer. That's a picture of Martin Van Buren.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 11:33:08 2010 No.1314947 use they have to write everything as a woman, instead of just writing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 11:35:08 2010 No.1314952 >>1314947 Because they have to* Damn phone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 11:46:08 2010 No.1314968 >>1314941 He does look a bit too happy to be Schopenhauer really

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 12:02:08 2010 No.1314994 Women preffer shopping. They also know nothing about music, except how to be a bitch what is barely music.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 12:25:08 2010 No.1315044 Because they are intellectually inferior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 12:36:08 2010 No.1315058 I have read some good short stories by Patricia Highsmith. As well as The talented Mr.Ripley. Opinions on her?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 27 12:39:08 2010 No.1315065 because of the patriarchy inherent in literature

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature