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

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 33 KB, 500x483, 33979c402223dd81124f4bd49d263b4a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15412185 No.15412185[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I don't read female writers

>> No.15412191

>>15412185
based

>> No.15412193

>>15412185
Good call

>> No.15412203

there's female writers?

>> No.15412226

based and enlightened

>> No.15412237

that sounds like an illogical, emotion driven impulse, anon.

>> No.15412244

>>15412237
seethe more roastie

>> No.15412266

>Attention whore wants accolades for misogyny
>Anon strokes his penis
Every time.

>> No.15412329

>>15412266
>muh misogyny
fag

>> No.15412341
File: 116 KB, 1080x1153, 0D41D2F4-0381-4702-AEA6-6DF82E917FAA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15412341

>>15412329
Naw, it’s your misogyny

>> No.15412343

What have you read anon?

>> No.15412358

Same.

>> No.15412425

>>15412237
There are more worthwile books than you can read and the vast majority of them were written by men. Our politically correct institutions engage in affirmative action by grotesquely inflating the ability of female writers which will result in you reading a lot of garbage trying to find the actual good ones, meaning you're wasting a lot of time which you could have spent on reading important works. The logical position seems to be that you can read female writers up to the 1950s or so before you drown in a sea of hyped mediocrity.

>> No.15412431

I very much doubt you read at all

>> No.15412437
File: 182 KB, 800x586, ono-no-komachi-woodblock-print.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15412437

ITT: your loss

>> No.15412468

unironically yes, i have enough /lit/ to last me a lifetime without touching anything made by some dumb roastie.

>> No.15412517

>>15412266

>Women calling men attention whores

Pot calling the kettle black

>> No.15412526

>>15412341

That looks like a man

>> No.15412580

Women's writing is somehow much more harsh and much less enjoyable than comparable male authors'. You read Muir or Lawrence and then read Mary Oliver and they're not even in the same ballpark. I honestly don't bother, male and female brains are wired differently, and to say otherwise is cope. There is a level of mutual unintelligibly that will never be breached because what a woman sees as a fundamental and innately truth will, at best, require a different presentation to be effective, and at worst, will not be seen as a fundamental and innate truth by a man. If you want to see this distinction read The Second Sex or something similar and pay attention to how it presents itself and interacts with the reader: the way the information is communicated is noticeably feminine and for a male reader this is tiring because it is not structured in the way our minds are structured. Or go on twitter, maybe the second most feminized platform after tik tok.

Once you start seeing gender in text it becomes very hard to not notice it. I honestly don't know if women experience the same thing with male authors but I suspect they do and are just too socialized to admit it--a radical feminist has to justify not associating with men by calling it "liberation." They are of course, the victims. It seems hard for an oversocialized person to justify not engaging with texts of the opposite gender because that is sexism.

tldr women go burrrrrr

>> No.15412585

Jennifer Egan is p good

>> No.15412688
File: 89 KB, 411x411, 749A3E12-7E2E-4FDE-90FD-196632AE4F98.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15412688

>>15412517
You people are schizophrenic attention whores. You hide, but you desperately want your buddies to give you a handy.

>>15412526
Because she’s not trying to attract men

>> No.15412828

>>15412425
mediocre male work has been historically celebrated, so it's only fair that (similarly mediocre) women get their chance in the limelight. that being said, i agree with your notion that our institutions are imbued with PC rhetoric and hostile to divergent ideas, and that reading modern works (from both sexes) must coincide with an analysis of the context in which said books were published, and an awareness of what hidden agendas may or may not be in play.

>> No.15412903

>>15412828
Mediocre male fiction as such has never been celebrated. If anything this was a random occurence related to fashion, bad taste or politics, with women and minorities there is a conscious effort to create a race and gender balanced canon because there is no substance that could create it spontaneously.

>> No.15413030

I don't read female characters

>> No.15413034
File: 70 KB, 960x938, F4EB423B-B382-49A5-B652-DA7555EC5538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15413034

>>15412185
Frick you you sexist fuck

>> No.15413063

>>15412903
Not the anon that you're responding to, but what you're saying is just plain wrong.
A quick example : if we take, say, theater, the 19th century and France, you'll probably think Cyrano de Bergerac and anything by Hugo, mostly Hernani. And yet, the most successful playwriters back then would have been Victorien Sardou or Eugène Scribe. I'm talking real fame, applauded by the public, played everywhere. Superstars of the time. But the poors shits have now been completely forgotten, for the very good reason that their theatre was mediocre Netflix-tier garbage.

>> No.15413079

>>15412828
>mediocre male work has been historically celebrated, so it's only fair that women get their chance in the limelight
a new kind of logic that philosophy can only dream of. nietzsche was right

>> No.15413082

>>15413063
That's what I meant by fashion, but they were never artistically elevated for their sex.

>> No.15413089

>>15412185
There are a few who are readable. Ursula LeGuin was pretty good until the 1980s when she got all shrill, hectoring and didactic. Must've hit menopause.
For example, the Earthsea trilogy was pretty good if a bit YA, but her sequel to it (Tehanu) was all feminazi propaganda. Depressing, really, I tried to read it but it was just such a disappointment. One of the few books that I actually threw away, since I didn't want to be responsible for anyone else reading such bilge.

>> No.15413106

>>15413082
Alright. I'm drunk and had only read your first, sentence to be honest. That being said, if fashion's your argument, then what's your issue with women writers being trendy ? Isn't it just as well a matter of fashion?

>> No.15413117

>>15412185
Nobody asked, faggot.

>> No.15413126

>>15413079
i’m being facetious here

>> No.15413156

>>15413106
It's politically manufactured and propaganda, not fashion. Even if it were a natural trend it would be equivalent to dropping the NBA in favour of the minor league while pretending that we're watching the same thing.
There's no intellectual endeauvor in which women can compete at the highest level with men and any attempt at establishing artificial parity will result in a collapse of quality. It's also tremendously unfair to the women and 'minorities' who actually do play at that level. They immediately become suspect, I will never read them because I have to assume they're political charity cases. Another thing is that since quality is now largely irrelevant the political structure that has captured the institutions will then implement an ideological ranking system which will lead to another catastrophic drop in quality since there will be very few artists with talent that fit into that straightjacket.

>> No.15413202
File: 106 KB, 859x1024, 1581204771864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15413202

>>15412185
and I never will.

>> No.15413243

>>15413156
That NBA comparison seems a bit of an exageration, no? Male literature hasn't been pushed over at all, and in fact it's still mostly prevalent.
The rest of your post seems contradictory: you say no women can compete at the highest level with men and it's all just politically correct artifical parity (a true phenomenon for sure), but then add that it's almost unfair to women who actually play at that level? So they can reach this level, by your own words?
Political correctness affecting the quality of pretty much everything, I won't debate, it's there to be seen just about everywhere.

Im not a female writers reader, by the way. It all feels like a non issue to me; I feel no great work will go unread no matter how this goes. The only woman I think I've read, actually, would be Ursula le Guin (the Earthsea stuff), and I did find it worthy.

>> No.15413267
File: 218 KB, 1080x1080, D8BaV7bWkAEqUzm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15413267

>>15413243
Post-1950 show off! SHOW OFF! SHOW OFF SHOW OFF!

>> No.15413289

>>15412185
How bigs your dick

>> No.15413312

>>15413243
They have to get pushed aside, there are only so many books that get big publisher support, only so many names on a shortlist and it is established that there has to be a female and minority quota. This process poisons the entire enterprise since people have to be convinced that what they're seeing isn't mediocre, meaning for example that the schools have to be subverted as well. Dissenting voices insisting on objective standards have to be shut up, blinding us in our ability to even perceive exceptional talent when it comes along. There are all sorts of effects that ripple through the system. The results can be observed throughout the arts, everything has collapsed, just look what's offered in terms of visual art. If the equivalent of the cleaning lady throwing the museum piece away because she thought it was trash could occur in contemporary literature it would.
Women as a group cannot achieve parity but individuals can excel. I'm just talking about averages and the resulting clustering at the top.

>> No.15413364

>>15413312
Well I don't mind this analysis at all, except for the part where you pretend to possess some otherwordly mastery of the man/woman ratio of potential/actual worth in life.

I would say, though, speaking about my country (France), that the publication industry has been polluted by all sorts of prostitution, unwarranted advantages towards certain people, and general bullshit with no regards whatsoever to actual quality since its very birth. Illusions Perdues by Balzac illustrates this pretty well.

>> No.15413455

>>15413364
I don't have the ratio (they do, 50%) but since writing is such a complex enterprise it will be heavily dependent on the IQ curve and I don't see intelligence in general and certainly not as a statistical clustering at the top as a measure of worth in a fundamental sense, neither in the individual nor the group. But there are maybe twice as many men as women with an IQ above 120 and the higher we get the more extreme it becomes. Female geniuses like the sole female Fields Medal winner Maryam Mirzakhani are very rare and that's the sort of competition you get at the highest level.

>> No.15413488

>>15413455
I have no idea about whether these statistics are right or wrong and I'm too close to bed to check. Truth is, I feel we're all just miserable wanderers down here, and any attempt to prove superiority from one side or the other makes me feel a special kind of misery inside. Bid you good night, anon! Would most likely enjoy your company IRL, at a comfortable table, with beer at hand.

>> No.15413502

>>15413488
It was fun, good night anon.

>> No.15413512

>>15412185
Fuck you

Agatha Christie and Enid Blyton were the bread and butter of my childhood.

>> No.15413529

>>15412425
>There are more worthwile books than you can read
Except there's not at all. Maybe get good taste.

>> No.15413563

>>15413529
Well, including non-fiction which does demand a share of your time. I think of the hundred million or so published a few thousand deserve the title 'worthwile' and that's pretty much all you can read. Some you have to read for cultural relevance or to see what the fuzz is about even if you ultimately don't appreciate them. Point being time is limited and the selection has to be harsh.

>> No.15413579

>>15413267
Is this image designed to be so obviously wrong it enrages anyone who looks at it? Or does the average NBA fan unironically put Kobe above Bird or Magic, and equivocate the second greatest passer of all time with Carmelo?

>> No.15413614

>>15413156
Women as an aggregate do not compete with men in intellectual endeavours. But based on IQ testing women comprise 20% of geniuses, and both user driven lists of the greatest novels and ones made by critics and publications more than fifteen years ago tend to reflect this ratio, with the female representation at 15-20%.

>> No.15413624

>>15412185
why would you, females have nothing to offer to literature philosophy or humanities in general

>> No.15413663

>>15413614
The exact math here is difficult because women are stronger verbally but men are stronger visually which also seems relevant and at the highest level the curve gets steeper, there you will barely find any women. Also it has been for a long time politically correct to include female writers in these lists (although more out of politeness rather than career destroying pressure). It's not that I disapprove of the 15%-20% but I couldn't say if that's a realistic number if we're talking about the greatest works of literature. My shelves are maybe 1% female.

>> No.15413673
File: 47 KB, 812x1024, 1583784584022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15413673

>Judith Butler

>> No.15413825

>>15412185
There is a differenz in what men and women are interested in. And since an author writes about what he/she is interested in it is obvious that female authors write for women and male authors write for men.
Take "pride and prejudice" for example, argualbly a pice of great literatur. But the story is nonetheless just a boring love-triangle.
I think most here don't read female literatur, not because it's written by women, but because it doesn't appeal to them.

>> No.15413858

I've quit buying books by women first published after 2010, every single time I try it's a huge disappointment.

>> No.15414175

>>15412185
>in bookstore
>pick up book
>read first page
>check blurb
>female author
>laugh aloud, attracting stares from other patrons
>put book back in shelf

>> No.15414228
File: 742 KB, 1920x1080, 1590026885505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15414228

>>15414175
>>15413858
I gave too many books a chance that turned out to be the most disgusting female fantasy scheme:
>husband is no more pleasing
>husband gets killed/jailed/"some cigarettes"
>new fuckboy appears
>fuckboy is sexy/smart/rich
>MC does not have to work
>MC lives a perfect life
>MC still gets to complain about a minor problem for 100 pages
its just as disgusting as disgusting male fantasies

>> No.15414239

>>15412185
Based

>> No.15414246

>>15414228
It's the beast that needs to be tamed to become prince charming. It's a fundamental female story, much like the hero arc for males. Doesn't have to be crass although in the mainstream it is, just like retarded action movies or whatever for men.

>> No.15414251
File: 59 KB, 197x197, Agatha_Christie.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15414251

>>15413512
Agatha Christie was a man, though.

>> No.15414261

>>15414228
>disgusting as disgusting male fantasies
You mean looking at and then sharing pleasure with a pretty lady? Oh no, she's not wearing much and then they enjoy each other sexually! Men are pigs!

>> No.15414266

>>15412185
Hey anon, check out the Madonna–whore complex I think it will help you understand why you are like this.

>> No.15414272

>>15414246
I don't mind the taming aspect. I love stories about men becoming better through the love of cultured women. What I do mind is the "Woman tamed a man and then being annoyed that he is tamed and she has to live a cultured life"-story.

>> No.15414274

>>15414266
t. grill power undergrad hearing these things for first time in zoom class

>> No.15414283

>>15414261
No, I'm saying in the context of female and male fantasies that, ethically speaking, cheap erotic novels are the euqivalent to German piss porn

>> No.15414287

>>15414266
Psychosexual babble has nothing to do with womyn being inferior aesthetes.

>> No.15414288

>>15414272
They still want the beast, danger that can be unleashed to protect. That's why they go for the beast in the first place and they don't want to end up with the castrated male. It's still a relevant female story.

>> No.15414293

Are there any well-written investigative pieces into how women took over the publishing world? I don't mind if it's pro or con, I'm just curious about the history of it and how we got here.

>> No.15414669

>>15412237
I am not OP but I never made the conscious decision to avoid female writers. It just naturally happened as my tastes became more sophisticated.

>> No.15414767

>>15413624
why would a >120 iq female have less to offer to literature, philosophy, or humanities in general than a >120 iq male? please be precise. if your perception is mostly based on anecdotal experience, feel free to include that.

>> No.15414771

>>15412185
What about Edith Hamilton ?

>> No.15414795

>>15414669
i also seldom read female writers (also unintentionally). i just think it's retarded to automatically discount work by an entire sex. there /are/ less great female works. that is a fact. but is this proof of woman's inherent inferiority? well, that's where things get more complicated. all i ask is that people see beyond black and white, give female perspectives a chance, and avoid letting their anecdotal experiences with boring, low iq females embitter them to the degree that they make sweeping, fallacious generalizations.

>> No.15414846

>>15412828
good post

>> No.15414876

>>15414767
female iq tops at 110 those are the genius levels for a female kind of smart, on the average they're around 80-100iq, theres not a single female with an iq above 110, and i dont read books written by anyone below 150iq

>> No.15414941

>>15414771
cringe.

>> No.15414949
File: 57 KB, 850x400, 6623694781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15414949

>>15414251