/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13892187]

>tfw hundreds of masterpieces never written because men kept women and people of color in ignorance

[Anonymous No.13892194]

>>13892187
I see this and I want to fap but then I look up coomer memes and I never even consider touching my fucking dick.

Bless coomer memes.

[Anonymous No.13892198]

>>13892187
Masterpieces only come from great suffering.

[Anonymous No.13892204]

>>13892187
Women's and poc's literature is hiring at best and laughable at worst.
Also, sage because bait

[Anonymous No.13892215]

The closest female writers have been to writing a masterpiece has been Mrs. Dalloway in the prose department and certain Dickinson poems in the lyric realm (in the English language, at least). Don't think we have missed too many masterpieces.

[Anonymous No.13892219]

>>13892215
You think that might be the result of preventing women from learning to read and write for nearly all of human history?

[Anonymous No.13892232]

Name one book by western "PoC" that isn't self in-group identity worship

[Anonymous No.13892279]

>>13892219
Epictetus was a slave.
Socrates and Diogenes never wrote anything.
Muhammad was illiterate.
Buddha didn't write anything.
Jesus didn't write anything.
Cervantes was enslaved and thought up Don Quixote in jail.
Hitler dictated in jail.
Robert Louis Stevenson was bed ridden, sick and high on cocaine when he wrote Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde in a fever rush within 10 days.
Lots of great male artists were self-taught, poor, sickly, "oppressed" and made something of themselves.

where there's a will there's a way. women just lack the will and creativity. Even now with emancipation they aren't reaching for the stars and creating timeless art, they're...well it's obvious what they're doing with all their new freedoms and it's disgusting.

[Anonymous No.13892287]

>>13892219
Perhaps women as a population didn't want to read or write for most of human history. Perhaps they wanted dominion over the domestic world instead.

[Anonymous No.13892290]

>>13892279
One offs and examples of religious figures do not really contradict historical fact.

[Anonymous No.13892296]

>>13892219
Women have never been prevented from reading and writing. Sappho was writing poetry before Plato was born.

[Anonymous No.13892327]

>>13892296
This, the average woman was no more oppressed than the average man was throughout history except for a couple of decades in the late 1800s/early 1900s.
In fact, (noble) women typically had a lot of time on their hands due to a lack of responsibilities.
The best female writers lived when they were the most opressed (late 19th century) , because suffering = great culture.

[Anonymous No.13892336]

Pickle niggers didnt even have the written language before we took them to the first world lmao

[Anonymous No.13892342]

[Anonymous No.13892344]

>>13892336
What are pickle niggers?

[Anonymous No.13892367]

White men have suffered more than any minority in history

[Anonymous No.13892376]

>>13892219
Why did they not rise up and learn it

[Anonymous No.13892384]

>>13892187
Oh it’s this rendition of history again
Can someone please tell NPR to
leave

[Anonymous No.13892445]

Why do people make these threads? How upset are you about women that you are drawn to do this? What is the benefit to you?

[Anonymous No.13892446]

>>13892215
To The Lighthouse slaps pretty hard.

[Anonymous No.13892664]

>>13892327
Suffering? Or just friction?

The great renaissance artists hardly suffered.

[Anonymous No.13892667]

>>13892194
The cumbrain does it for me.

[Anonymous No.13892680]

>>13892194
same here. coomer finally got me to stick with nofap.

[Anonymous No.13892684]

>>13892279
>where there's a will there's a way. women just lack the will and creativity.

99% of men also lack will and creativity.

[Anonymous No.13892721]

>>13892215
Holy anglo.

[Anonymous No.13892731]

>>13892194
Cumbrain memes couldn’t but the images of that grotesque bald gremlin disturbed me enough to significantly cut down

[Anonymous No.13892735]

>>13892684
This is true, female IQ clusters at 100, while male IQ clusters at the extremes, higher and lower.
This means 99% of men and 100% of women are worthless.
t. 150 IQ

[Anonymous No.13892776]

>>13892279
>being jailed is the same thing as being illiterate
I'm not sure you really understood the argument. I'm also not sure you realize what were the conditions of life for most the imprisoned people in your list. Having access to pen and paper alone was a luxury, jail or no jail.

You don't even realize the contradictions of your own objection, for instance
>Hitler dictated in jail.
So he had somenone to dictate to (a rather unthinkable circumstances for most prisoners nowadays). Who would have listened to the dictation of a random woman or peasant in the 16th century?

or
>Epictetus was a slave.
he was a freed slave. Most slaves never wrote anything of note and yet there was a massive number of them. Even more remarkable considering wealthy houses often had literate slaves acting as tutors for children. Sizable number of literate people, interesting experience ( a life of servitude always makes for some insight), and yet scarcely any writing except from those who were granted freedom by their own masters.

The mention of religious leaders here is laughable given we only know about those people because they've been massively written about.

>women just lack the will and creativity.
Demonstrably false in general since many women wrote. True but self-defeating in the particularity most cases since precisely the education of most women until relatively recently included exclusion or even discouragement from writing.

How can you learn to write if nobody around you prizes literature, if nobody will teach you and if there are no books around?

This argument apply to lower-class men as well, though to a lesser extent as it does to women. There had not been that many lower-class writers until the onset of the 18th century (and I'm being generous with the chronology here). Past that there are many female writers as well, you just haven't heard of them because, as your own post examplify, your historical culture is shallow and your understanding sparse. In fact women in European courts were writing classics of literature as early as the 16th century (look up Artamène and the great Cyrus or the Princess of Clèves for instance -we don't hear much about them but how many 16th century work do we hear about, except for the hyper-memed Shakespare and Cervantes?).

>Even now with emancipation
We live in a ctulure so detrimental to the arts even men aren't writing anything of value. And don't throw me names like the last Nobel prize winners or Anglo darlings like McCarthy. Almost all of them are well over sixty.

[Anonymous No.13892785]

>>13892290
>One offs
he gave like 8 examples

[Anonymous No.13892786]

>>13892776
>>being jailed is the same thing as being illiterate
>I'm not sure you really understood the argument

Why did you ignore Muhammad and Socrates and Diogenes and Jesus, and great men who became timeless but never wrote down a word?

[Anonymous No.13892788]

>>13892296
>Women have never been prevented from reading and writing. Sappho was writing poetry before Plato was born.

Any historian of Ancient Greece would have died of laughter at this point of the thread. Women in the time of Plato (and before) were barely allowed to leave their house and meet males outside of their families (tell me, what does the word gynaeceum refers to?).
The only exception were the prostitues and courtesans who, on the lower end, where like particularly lowly slaves and, on the upper end, where the only women the Greek treated as almost equal to men. Those where the hetaires and in terms of both rarity and respect they were more comparable to Hollywood movie stars than to the average housewife in the 1950s.

Claiming that women weren't prevented from writing because a handful of them in fifty years were educated is like pretending that the English working class never existed because there are English diplomats. It's a ridiculous statement that can only work from a confusion between a general and a particular assertion.

[Anonymous No.13892789]

>>13892187
Imagine all the lost stories and events from the tens of thousands of years of human prehistory.

[Anonymous No.13892803]

>>13892788
>me, what does the word gynaeceum refers to?
the kitchen

[Anonymous No.13892805]

>>13892786
I specifically adressed the religious leaders here:

>The mention of religious leaders here is laughable given we only know about those people because they've been massively written about.

We're talking about people who had entire doctrines created around them. Some of them were conquerors (Muhammad), some were nobility (Buddha), in some cases their historical existence is debatable. They mostly exist as a focus point for a long written tradition that often quite departs from them. Who is Jesus without Paul?

Diogenes is in the same bag. We only know about him because people were fond of writings memes (most of them historically dubious) about how he liked to btfo people. And that's only because he knew Plato and the (writing) philosophers of his time.

Next time you're going to pretend snakes are better writers than women because there is a talking snake in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.13892806]

>women were prevented from writing medieval vagina monologues
Oh no how will art ever recover?!

[Anonymous No.13892810]

>>13892785
Out of thousands that's not much. You can prove almost anything by only looking at the most ten important people in any given field. You could probably prove baldness is a sign of genius (or the exact opposite) by choosing the right major history figures.

[Anonymous No.13892814]

>>13892805
>Next time you're going to pretend snakes are better writers than women because there is a talking snake in the Bible.
Point flew over your head.
You don't have to be a high-brow literarti to dictate insightful wisdom, create stories and poems and dialogues. If you have brains and skill people will quote you and write for you.

But women barely said anything worth writing down.

[Anonymous No.13892817]

>>13892810
how many famous authors in the 18th and 19th centuries died poor?

[Anonymous No.13892832]

>>13892735
Based.

[Anonymous No.13892834]

>>13892187
Imagine falling for this close minded narrative and actually believing it. Yet you criticize God.

[Anonymous No.13892883]

>>13892788
Just curious, what percentage of men do you think had access to reading and writing during Ancient Greece? Do you really think it was a situation where women were kept shackled to a fire pit while men leisurely ate grapes and read contemporary classics? Do you really think significantly more men than the proportion of the population that made up the hetaerae were literate in a way that included producing works of art?

[Anonymous No.13892900]

>>13892814
>You don't have to be a high-brow literarti
Where did I mention say you did? I only assumed you need to be aware that literature is a thing, literate and in conditions to write literary books. See the example of the Greek slaves in my above post, some of them fulfilled the first two conditions but not the third, that's why I don't expect many slaves to have been noted writers (freed slaves don't count, they're like free men in almost all respect).

>If you have brains and skill
You need prerequisite for skill. Other skills, like basic literacy, a measure of free time and practice, the possibility of being read and received, etc. Material conditions are not everything but they matter, and it's not only about poor vs rich, it's about how writing features as a part of your daily life. In Shakespeare's time a poorfag could be expected to go to the city and try to make a living for himself by learning any kind of trade including writing. Women weren't expected in that trade, they weren't even allowed to play the female parts in the plays.

Tell me, how many timeless plays did Shakespeare write while he was working in his father's farm and before he went to London?
Sure he was young, but he was very precocious and he already had attended grammar school at the time. There were at least two solid year in which he could have written something and yet we have no record of it. Given the extent ofShakespearean research that probably means he didn't write anything, not anything anyone would have cared to preserve at least.
What then is the great difference between 20 years old farmer boy (but already educated) Shakespeare and 23 years old budding London writer Shakspeare? Could it be that even when you're literate and inspired it takes time, conditions, encounters and material conditions to write? Or are you going to argue Shakespeare had no brain until he was 23 ? Mind that at 21 Shakespeare was already married with children, it's not like he had no life experience to write about.

>people will quote you and write for you
Only if they expect you to be worth quoting which is the whole point. If people are not ready to give you one hour of their day to listen to you or read your draft it's already almost over assuming you even have the time and skill to write.

>But women barely said anything worth writing down.
And we get back to my initial point, namely your historical illiteracy. Why did I even bother? I must have been more bored than I imagined.

>>13892817
Plenty, but what does that prove? Many of them were paid to write even if they were paid badly (case in point: Villiers and Boy did almost nothing but write, in Bloy's case his wife took care of his household from him).
There's no comparison with someone who's not expected to write and constantly busy with non-literary tasks like wiping children's asses and or managing household finances.
Mind that we don't remember most of the writers who died poor. Making it to posterity is a rare event.

[Anonymous No.13892941]

>>13892883
>Just curious, what percentage of men do you think had access to reading and writing during Ancient Greece?
A surprisingly large percentage for the time actually. It's one of the common explanations for why so many things were invented in Ancient Greece, because it was one of the first peak of public literacy in history (not that it is comparable to today's numbers, but it was aleady enough). Kant explicitly mentions this fact somewhere in his essay on cosmopolitical history iirc. So I would guess maybe around 3-5% if not more (for women I'd guess around 0.1%, of course those are wild guesses, but you get the idea).

>Do you really think it was a situation where women were kept shackled to a fire pit while men leisurely ate grapes and read contemporary classics?
The first half of your sentence is actually not that far from the livings conditions of most women in Ancient Greece. It's not that they were shackled, but rather they were confined in a world were there was no place for literacy or literature. "There was no place" means not only they can't read, but they don't get to talk with poets or be introduced to the study of poetry in any conceivable way (with the exception of hetaires which I already mentioned here >>13892788).


Again, I already adressed this,learn what a gynaeceum is. We still accounts of conversations between Greek (male) friends to the effect of "a man barely ever speaks to his wife". You don't realize how different the world was for Greek men and women in Antiquity. The fantasy of the ambitious young woman making it as a writer in a great city might have some social reality to it before the 20th century, but in Ancient Greece it was outlandish expect for a very small minority of high-end courtesans whose names, by the way, are still remembered to this day (by those who actually study Antiquity at least).

[Anonymous No.13892947]

>>13892941
*still have accounts

[Anonymous No.13892949]

>>13892279
>Jesus
Jesus arose in a culture where female testimony was worth less than a mans, where women were not permitted to enter the main temple, where it was prophesied that the messiah would be the “SON of David”, where society was unabashedly patriarchal. And this is the example you give?
Christianity was probably one of the first religions to preach something approximating to gender equality and racial harmony, but even then it did not permit women to teach men. Why do you think there were no great women among the early Christians?
>Muhammad
Again, Muhammad arose in an extremely patriarchal culture and was a fucking MILITARY LEADER WHO PLUNDERED NEARBY VILLAGES AND CARAVANS. You really think a culture that permitted men to marry more than one wife and women only to marry one husband and where paradise was seen as basically a sexual orgy meant for pleasing men could have had a woman prophet? You are so retarded it’s incomprehensible.
>Buddha
Idk much about Buddha, but given how wrong you’ve been in your other examples I think it’s safe to say this one is wrong too.
>the Greeks
The Greeks also had a patriarchal culture. Nobody would have listened to a woman stoic teacher. As for Diogenes and Socrates, nobody knows if they even existed, and if they did, do you think a woman would have been able to take their place in such a patriarchal culture?
>Cervantes went to jail
Lmao. Not worth a response.
>Hitler
Yep. I’m sure in hitlers Germany a woman would have been listened to and respected like hitler was.
>even now
We are slowly starting to see women gravitate towards the humanities and contribute more to art. Remember, we are only a few generations removed from the days when women were oppressed, so men basically have thousands of years as a head start.


Nearly all of great literature was written by rich, educated, and respected people. Since through all of human history until the 1960s a woman would be seen as “unladylike” if she tried to partake in a serious conversation, had it programmed into her that she must be a submissive dainty housewife with no opinions of her own, and in many cases was denied education and even literacy, it’s no wonder that women have less of a presence in the canon than men.

[Anonymous No.13892952]

>>13892342
The person who wrote this thought it was making an insightful point about the intelligence of women, and it does, but not in the way he thought it did

[Anonymous No.13892959]

>>13892187
> tfw hundreds of masterpieces never read because people keep posting in shitty threads instead of reading

[Anonymous No.13892964]

>>13892219
This is a lie, by the way.

[Anonymous No.13892982]

>>13892900
Thanks for actually making some good points and taking the time to argue with these people. You can’t imagine how much it means to me. I hope they respond because I really want to understand how someone who disagrees with you can justify their beliefs to themselves even after reading what you wrote without dismissing your points entirely. I never know because people either avoid this topic entirely or start getting dodgy as soon as you make the arguments you did and won’t give any alternative explanation as for why there aren’t as many great works written by women.

[Anonymous No.13892994]

>>13892194
Absolutely

[Anonymous No.13892998]

>>13892952
>le metaphysic is retarded muh panphysicalism
We will litteraly dance on your grave; in the sense that you will meet the second death and we won't.

[Anonymous No.13893003]

Well, since they now have been emancipated, surely we will see a deluge of masterworks produced by them, right?

[Anonymous No.13893043]

>>13892941
The ambitious young woman looking to make it as a writer in the city is a meme in the 21st century and I'm not sure why you'd think women would be significantly more ambitious in Greece. As far as your first point you completely missed what I was saying. If 3-5% of the male population in 21st century reads beyond whatever utilitarian needs they have I'd be surprised and you're projecting this myth of the literate modern world onto the men of the past as if it actually means anything.

[Anonymous No.13893054]

>>13892194
You want to fap to this?? :/

[Anonymous No.13893068]

>>13892949
>We are slowly starting to see women gravitate towards the humanities and contribute more to art. Remember, we are only a few generations removed from the days when women were oppressed, so men basically have thousands of years as a head start.

[Anonymous No.13893084]

[Anonymous No.13893088]

>>13892900
I cannot even imagine how myopic and devoid of actual real historical understanding you must be to actually miss the point this hard.

No one is saying men and women had it equal but prior to modern liberalism the concept that you got to decide what society required of you was inconceivable. Extraneous women did not exist in the way extraneous men did because of the massive infant (and more general) mortality issue. Birthing and raising children was necessary to keep society as a large going and the limit of the ability to maintain society was ones ability to have children who could grow to uphold it. That meant that women as a whole were the limiting factor, leaving very few of them unnecessary in the way that both a beggar and an artist are in terms of directly providing for sustainence the rest of the society could live on. Yes, this allowed a very small percentage of men who were extraneous from the process of producing food and logistically distributing goods to become literate in a way that was not afforded to very many women. This does not imply some ridiculous conscious effort to suppress women's ability to write YA fiction in the way people fucking gripe about today and the concept that this would even be a priority is so fucking bourgeois it's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.13893090]

[Anonymous No.13893091]

>>13893084
she looks cute in the second photo

[Sage No.13893094]

Sage in every field.

[Anonymous No.13893102]

>>13893091
Doable, I agree, but not breedable, unless you want potato children and/or autistic offspring.

[Anonymous No.13893108]

>>13892194
>I got prostate cancer because of memes
>Read the shocking interview on page 17

[Anonymous No.13893109]

>>13892194
Amen

[Anonymous No.13893110]

>>13893043
>The ambitious young woman looking to make it as a writer in the city is a meme in the 21st century
That was precisely my point, funny that you would latch on that particular bit.

>why you'd think women would be significantly more ambitious in Greece
I precisely stated I thought the opposite.

>As far as your first point you completely missed what I was saying.
Right back at you. I didn't only say 3-5% of men, but 0.1% of women. Literate men were a minority but still enough to constitute a literary culture, while literate women were virtually a minuscule subset of male literary culture, because there was no female culture to speak of (and even those literate women were expected to perform, sing and seduce more than write, though they also did that on occasion). Don't forget that the audience for those literate pursuits were free men, already a minority among men. So 3-5% of literate men means maybe twice as much in proportion to free men. I admit I probably have been over optimistic with the estimate but again, those were wild guesses and I only provided them because you asked. And of course that depends a lot which era of Ancient Greece we're talking about.
The point is there were enough literate Greeks for writers to arise and for people to read them, as evidenced by the existence of Greek poets and dramatist (they even had contests of who could write the best plays), while almost no Greek woman was even in a position of writing (not to mention being read) in the first place. The very few who did were so rare and so lauded as exceptions that we still hear about them nowaday, and even then they were still supposed to mostly please men in private.

So the argument that very few Greek men were literate falls flat. Almost all literary cultures only involve a small minority anyway, but there is a difference between a small minority that dominates a culture and a negligible minority that can only blend in the culture. And for the Ancient Greeks that difference precisely reflects the constitution of their society: women were not only confined to menial jobs, they literally couldn't have jobs, even something like a cleaning lady couldn't exist in Ancient Greece, your cleaning lady is your official lady and she does it for free.

> reads beyond whatever utilitarian needs
A significant part of their reading at the time was not utilitarian. Most of their daily business could be conducted orally or with minimal amount of writing. Even the literary culture was closely informed by their oral tradition.

>you're projecting this myth of the literate modern world onto the men of the past as if it actually means anything
I'm not projecting anything, I'm telling you the Greeks were known for being literate compared to their contemporaries. I expressely added that it is not comparable to modern rates of literacy.
At this point there is no argument to be made, I can only urge you to reread the very post you're quoting.

[Anonymous No.13893112]

>>13892803
Underrated

[Anonymous No.13893133]

>>13892998
Who is "we"?

[Anonymous No.13893136]

>>13893133
He probably means ((them))

[Anonymous No.13893144]

only the peoples of Eurasia have any ability in writing. No good literate has ever come from the natives of Africa, the Americas or SE Asia/Oceania

[Anonymous No.13893145]

>>13892949
So your point is “men=bad”?
As OP stated women have not produced a single piece of enlightenment in metaphysics, philosophy or well... anything save from base literary pieces women have not contributed, and claiming that patriarchy is to blame is just plain retarded, women have had access to writing for several centuries (while men died in wars of course) and I’m too tired... I don’t even want to continue writing to your obviously bait post

[Anonymous No.13893166]

>>13893084
>>13893102
dudem epic.....Epic MGTOW moment bro fellow man bro

[Anonymous No.13893171]

>>13892187
MOMMY

[Anonymous No.13893176]

>>13893145
Not him, and i actually unironically hate females, but he BTFO'd that guy, and he already responded to literally every of your points in his other posts.

[Anonymous No.13893180]

>>13892187
WHO IS SHE?????

[Anonymous No.13893196]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.13893230]

>All the people itt not getting the irony of the post contrasted with pic

[Anonymous No.13893231]

>>13893166
Is this whiteface?

[Anonymous No.13893296]

>>13892219
Women dominate the industry now. Every publishing house is filled with women editors, brokers, proofreaders. Most agents are women and all the writers I've accepted manuscripts for are women.
t. publishing house editor.

[Anonymous No.13893333]

>>13892187
>if women and non white are equal to white men, then why haven't they taken their independence?
>It's almost like
>They're inferior or something

[Anonymous No.13893409]

>>13892198
/thread

[Anonymous No.13893419]

>>13893296
>now
Yeah. That’s the point.

[Anonymous No.13893428]

>>13892187
>tfw masterpieces never written by men who haven't had the mental clarity to do so, due to their unfulfilled romantic lives

[Anonymous No.13893436]

>>13892194
Imagine being so weak willed you are unironically influenced by discord memes

[Anonymous No.13893543]

>>13892684
True, but if you have population groups where 99% of one and 99.5% of the other are not very creative, the one with that extra .5% of creativity will be greatly over-represented in the creative fields.