[ 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: 81 KB, 1080x1331, 79432256-77D0-4330-91C4-5C509A7CA3E1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16017214 No.16017214[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Blind sexism and ad hominem aside, is there a well documented and concrete reason why female writers are so inferior to male writers?

>> No.16017222

>>16017214
I think if writing was a bigger necessity in school it'd be more interesting. Like mandatory philosophy class for school and English class was geared towards you writing a novel once a year

>> No.16017226

>>16017214
Odds of a woman being a genius are only 20% of the odds of a male being one, due to women have less variance between individuals on average.

Hence why woman make up an equal proportion of genre fiction, but only contribute about a fifth of the literary canon from 1800 onwards

>> No.16017232

>>16017226
In the past 200 years only 40 have been capable for women writers so you've made the opposite point

>> No.16017237

>>16017214
I don't read female authors for the same reason that I don't read Oscar Wilde.

>> No.16017243

>>16017237
Woii?

>> No.16017246

>>16017214
Honestly it's probably down to the male variability "hypothesis". You look to the far end of the curve and find more outstanding men than women - perhaps even exaggerated by historical sex roles.

I predict if you look at the bread-and-butter normie-fiction market you'll find women outperforming men in sentiment and sales.

>> No.16017251

>>16017226
>Odds of a woman being a genius are only 20% of the odds of a male being one, due to women have less variance between individuals on average.
Not true at all. Women are as genetically diverse as men, and that applies to the structure of their minds as well. It's actually men who are on average slightly more genetically homogenous.

>> No.16017261

No.

>> No.16017262

>>16017237
Is it because you’re a cloister faggot who hates himself? That’s the right answer

>> No.16017269

>>16017251
You need to cite that

>> No.16017276

>>16017226
Wrong, there has never been a single female genius in the entire history of mankind. Women make up none of the literary canon and any list which includes female authors has been written by a pseud.

>> No.16017277

>>16017214
Maybe they are good its just that they aren't "good" in your way?

>> No.16017284

>>16017277
That sounds retarded

>> No.16017287

>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the un-aesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mere mockery if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. Hence, as a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything; and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman's nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated--a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius

>> No.16017289

>>16017226
Peterson drone didn't even bother fact checking

>> No.16017291

>>16017276
Jane Austen was the only author with sense in her day. She dismantled Sensibility novels and preempted realism in the vein that Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky would write in. Particularly the psychologism of it

>> No.16017307

>>16017284
No the world with all its manifold represenations and varied minds all adhering to one standard of expression as if art were a Platonic form is what is misguided.

>> No.16017338
File: 20 KB, 640x591, F6403E14-5923-4FEE-BC58-62EC4425D805.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16017338

>>16017307

>> No.16017343

>>16017307
Yes 1+1=2 depending on what color you dyed your hair that day. Sometimes it's 3, it's just spirit of the person.

>> No.16017374

>>16017214
how can a parasite write about war? how a pet cat can write about lions in the wild?

>> No.16017417 [DELETED] 

“We cannot ask ourselves whether ‘woman’ is superior or inferior to ‘man’ any more than we can ask ourselves whether water is superior or inferior to fire … There can be no doubt that a woman who is perfectly woman is superior to a man who is imperfectly man, just as a farmer who is faithful to his land and performs his work perfectly is superior to a king who cannot do his own work.”

>> No.16017420

>>16017214
>“We cannot ask ourselves whether ‘woman’ is superior or inferior to ‘man’ any more than we can ask ourselves whether water is superior or inferior to fire … There can be no doubt that a woman who is perfectly woman is superior to a man who is imperfectly man, just as a farmer who is faithful to his land and performs his work perfectly is superior to a king who cannot do his own work.”

>> No.16017423

>>16017214
Life on easy mode

>> No.16017434

>>16017423
this, in fact the only women with a shred of life of the mind and worth talking to are the ugly or maladjusted ones

>> No.16017496

>>16017214
They have different brain structure and can't create anything conceptually new, except kids

>> No.16017537

>>16017214
They could not even leave their houses for the majority of history.

>> No.16017587

>>16017343
Do you realize how retarded it is to compare art with math in this way?

>> No.16017635

>>16017287
>be woman
>conquering man
man = woman's aesthetic

>> No.16017651

>>16017423
>exist
>do constant light menial labor
>get fucked
>get pregnant
>die in childbirth
More like life on boring mode

>> No.16017661

>>16017214
Mans inability to give birth strives them to achieve things woman cannot comprehend.

>> No.16017673

>>16017661
Do men actually have deep psychological hangups about not being able to grow new humans inside their stomachs from a single drop of semen? Is this some freudian shit, like penis envy but for men?

>> No.16017688

>>16017214
during the golden ages of writing, women were seriously restricted in possibilities. undereducated or not taught literacy at all, having to do all the chores and nurse the kids, the prejudices that discouraged creative activity that didnt align with feminine shit like drawing still lives.
when this finally eased and women became more or less free and able to write, the age of literature was already over.

>> No.16017699

>>16017661
if people werent natal reductionist retards life would be better

>> No.16017719

>>16017688
They can write now.

>> No.16017734

Women aren't mentally inferior to men in terms of intellectual capability but they lack in both physical and mental strength (one may be a consequence of the other) compared to men. Men also have the stronger sex drive, so the attractiveness of women becomes a weakness and liability to them, especially as women are necessary for the continuation of bloodlines and before paternity tests it was impossible to have full certainty of a child's father. It is thus biologically natural that men suppress women's potential, both because it is natural for the strong to overpower the weak and because it is the sensible choice to attempt to control that which is a liability. "Sexism" is mostly a rationalization which can be conveniently changed in it's specific ideas to match the current culture, but the "oppression" of women is something natural and near inevitable in most cultures where reproduction is understood clearly, at least until now.

When you see the "female empowerment" movement today, or depictions of the "strength" of women, does it not feel funny/pathetic/impotent in some way? This is natural, because it is a clear farce. Women are visibly and intuitively understood to be the weaker sex, and attempts to show otherwise are pathetic posing that is accepted because it's being allowed to not be crushed. If we're heading towards a future like in sci-fi where genetic and technological modifications unlock most limits, men and women may come closer to true equality, but we are not there. In these times women are given a false equality, where they are allowed to exist as more or less equal, but we all know it is a false equality, leading in part to the tensions experienced today.

>> No.16017793

>>16017688
>during the golden ages of writing, women were seriously restricted in possibilities. undereducated or not taught literacy at all, having to do all the chores and nurse the kids, the prejudices that discouraged creative activity that didnt align with feminine shit like drawing still lives.
This is historically wrong. Most readers were female

>> No.16017918

>>16017251
You are empirically wrong. IQ distributions for men exhibit fatter tails