Female Literature

[Anonymous No.16844328]

Are females attracted to an specific kind of literature? Almost all the ones I know at my uni read either YA or communist stuff.

[Anonymous No.16844342]

no

[Anonymous No.16844345]

>>16844328
Female is as varied and spontaneous a group of human as any group of human. Any attempt to ascribe a set standard of average personalities will surely lead you to failure. For every average there is an outlier, and women are human just as men are. There are chemical differences within the brain that can lead to certain predispositions in certain contexts, but even these are too variable to accurately display Woman a paint by numbers. They're complicated and multitudinous. Treat each person you meet as a person with a mind as complex and ever changing as is your own.

[Anonymous No.16844346]

>>16844328
Yeah it's a genre called "whatever's popular"

[Anonymous No.16844347]

>>16844328
what is apu putting on his spaghetti?

[Anonymous No.16844356]

>>16844328
yeah

stupid shit like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfHr_k_lbw

[Anonymous No.16844363]

>>16844347
Japanese gamer girl pee

[Anonymous No.16844376]

>>16844347
This apu was made by OCanon based on one of the best threads we've had this year. >>>16815445

[Anonymous No.16844383]

>>16844345
>t. roastie

[Anonymous No.16844399]

>>16844383
:(

[Anonymous No.16844405]

only the dumb shit

[Anonymous No.16844408]

>>16844376
I never thought I thread could hurt me so much.

[Anonymous No.16844425]

>>16844345
Only a female could've written something as dumb as this. And if you're a tranny then congrats, you achieved writing like a female.

[Anonymous No.16844433]

>>16844425
and ofc i posted the wrong pic. this is the one I wanted to post, jesus...

[Anonymous No.16844437]

>>16844425
I'm a man goddammit. Im just not a sad fucking loser that married contrarian edginess with the online incel revival. Go fuck.

[Anonymous No.16844445]

>>16844433
Hating women while idolizing cute concept art of women. Idk what to say.

[Anonymous No.16844465]

>>16844445
It's not mine I swear

[Anonymous No.16844481]

>>16844356
Yo wtf, is that a chick (male)?

[Anonymous No.16844490]

>>16844465
Ok anon ;)

[Anonymous No.16844493]

>>16844481
No that's a dude (male)

[Anonymous No.16844552]

>>16844408
>hurt
but it's a happy cute thread

[Anonymous No.16844565]

>>16844552
but I want mute gf now. ..

[Anonymous No.16844566]

>>16844345
Based

[Anonymous No.16844573]

>>16844376
ok but what is apu putting on his spaghetti?

[Anonymous No.16844578]

>>16844328
I'm fairy certain women use romance novels as "emotional porn", in a way that is hard to grasp for men.
So, probably stay away from talking/gifting that.

[Anonymous No.16844581]

>>16844573
Read the thread and you'll find out, anon. It's a comfy read.

[Anonymous No.16844591]

>>16844565
well you can't have it! HAHAHAHAH

you will never be loved, ever

HHAHAHHAHA

[Anonymous No.16844671]

>>16844376
>tfw no deaf-mute /lit/ g-shock gf

[Anonymous No.16844779]

>>16844376
Wholesome thread, thanks for posting

[Anonymous No.16844804]

>>16844328
They only like reading their chad fuckbuddies' messages where he tells them all the depraved things he wants to do to them while reading her simps' simpy texts.

[Anonymous No.16844815]

>>16844328
From what I can tell they really love stories describing personal drama, experiences of individuals, lots of introspection and such.

[Anonymous No.16844830]

>>16844328
Literally every gal I have ever met has complete different tastes. A lot of my women friends at school vary between physics and biology articles/journals, poetry from all the different movements, fiction from all the different movements, and cheesy romance or YA. The only thing that I have seen that most gals universally enjoy, at least at the academic level, is the medieval or the Renaissance era. Loads of my friends have an absolute obsession with either Chaucer and Shakespeare. Literally one of my friends is doing her Masters degree focusing on Pynchon and Barthelme. I find the YA stuff to be kind of the same regard as dudes like Stephen King or Dean Koontz.

You dudes need to get out more and meet more people. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.16844844]

>>16844830
I had a female professor who wrote her thesis on french medieval literature. Interesting that you say they tend to like the medievals. Why do you think it is so? Medieval values are very different from contemporary values, so it's a bit puzzling.

[Anonymous No.16844845]

>>16844345
This.
>>16844437
this right here man well said. I have some amazing women in my life fuck everyone who says they can't be valued as much as a man. Incels literally just need to have some more positive relationships with women in their life and boom they're cured. In 100% of cases . trust me

[Anonymous No.16844847]

>>16844844
Bro stop saying fucking 'they' they're not a hive mind lol

[Anonymous No.16844848]

>>16844345
>women are human

[Anonymous No.16844850]

>>16844845
I'm not an incel, I just hate women.

[Anonymous No.16844853]

>distinct catagories don't have distinct differences
Always amazed by this take.

[Anonymous No.16844854]

>>16844850
I just don't think someone who has good relationships with lots of women could ever hate them. Seems as logical as hating all people with a certain hair colour

[Anonymous No.16844870]

>>16844854
I hate men too. I have a very dim view of people in general, but statistically there's just some patterns that strongly correlate with gender.

[Anonymous No.16844875]

YA and romance/mystery desu.

[Anonymous No.16844879]

>>16844870
Why don't you like people

[Anonymous No.16844881]

>>16844847
I have a good reason for it though. Most young people are heavily influenced by their respective anima or animus figure. In the case of women, being under the influence of their animus-figure, they act as a mediator between the collective and individual consciousness. This means within a given culture, there is more generalities within their views than variations. This doesn't mean all women are under the influence of the animus, this depends on how much they have integrated it, but as I said most young people regardless of gender tend not have integrated their anima or animus figure. Since both the theory and common experience seem to confirm this, so I will continue to refer to them as "they", though if you have a different view, by all means make your case.

[Anonymous No.16844939]

>>16844879
That's a difficult question. But the core of it I would say is that people tend to be very conformist, especially in groups, and this causes problems when you have autism.

[Anonymous No.16844974]

>>16844376
>people are still falling for Silent Voice fanfictions

[Anonymous No.16845268]

>>16844328
that pic is kinda cute actually

[Anonymous No.16845455]

>>16845268
No its not. Fuck that guy and his gf. It hurts me so much

[Anonymous No.16845464]

>>16844345
the rare reasonable /lit/izen, thanks anon.

itt: if you're a incel, kys.

[Anonymous No.16845489]

>>16844328
Depends on the woman
My Paternal grandmother read books of most genres as long as they were well recieved. My Maternal Grandmother had a lot of interesting books on mysteries and the paranormal. My aunt also has a lot of paranormal centered stuff, as well as historical memoirs and thrillers. I myself read mostly classics, horror and historical books

[Anonymous No.16846033]

>>16844345
>imagine actually believing this

[Anonymous No.16846105]

As with everything else they do, women prefer low-effort shit with low barriers to entry, no learning curve or initial dedication of time required, no skill acquisition required, and they have no shame about never cultivating any skill or never becoming excellent at anything in the eyes of their peers.

Women can usually be found reading high school or even primary school fare into their 40s. Anything else they read is for "clout" on social media. The kind of woman who pretends to read communist literature is taking several dicks a week and very depressed. Those women think social media is real life, and that their college experience is going to last forever, so their only life goal is to become the baddest Instagram bitch they can.

They don't realize that they will soon graduate college and become "some random lady" nobody gives a fuck about, and that the only reason all those men go HAHA YEAHHH COMMUNISM WHOOOA YOU KNOW WHO ZIZEK IS??? is because their pussy is available and they are a young-ish woman. Young-ish women with available pussies are now so common that even average-looking men don't feel grateful or accomplished for fucking them anymore. It used to be that only Chads knew what it felt like to see the average young available pussy as "meh, I'd fuck it but that's it" material, that's part of what made Chad alluring to women and ensured him even more sex. But college girls have given away the milk for free for so long that even total average joes now have plenty of practice going WHOOOA ZIZEK??? DAMN GIRL YOU READ... BENJAMIN??? YOU MENTIONED BAUDRILLARD???? WOOOWWWW YOU MUST BE SOOO BIG ON TWITTER!!! just long enough to conform to the girl's delusional self-perception that she's going to be an internet famous podcaster with #hella #epic communist twitter friends or whatever the hell it is these dumb broads want. Then they pump and dump her.

This cycle continues until the girl is 26 and wrinkly and men instinctively aren't interested in her anymore, the youth aura/glow has fled her body and she's just a limp McDonalds hamburger of a pussy now (edible but battered and barely tolerable as sustenance). The woman becomes increasingly desperate for validation of a lifestyle she never even succeeded in living except in her head, while said validation becomes scarcer and lower quality, because now only men with something wrong with them are willing to fuck her. Weird greasy guys with low standards, men who can't fuck younger hotter pussy for whatever reason. This makes it harder and harder to maintain the image of being a fun exciting twitter communist podcast girl, which makes the demand for validation higher, in an endless downward spiral with no escape.

I did know a Marxist girl with enormous jugs who really knew her shit though. I hope she ended up with a good guy. She was too smart to ride the cock carousel all the way to hell like most of these bitches. I hope her jugs didn't cancel out her smarts and turn her into a thot anyway.

[Anonymous No.16846151]

>>16846105

[Anonymous No.16846161]

History.

[Anonymous No.16846166]

>>16846151
>say something that doesn't revolve around sex or being cool/popular/acceptable/successful enough to have sex

[Anonymous No.16846251]

>>16844345
should be common knowledge

[Anonymous No.16846291]

>>16844345
>Female is as varied and spontaneous a group of human as any group of human. Any attempt to ascribe a set standard of average personalities will surely lead you to failure
absolute bullshit, young drivers are an equally diverse group of people and yet insurance companies always charge them higher than experienced drivers for a car insurance because on average they are the more reckless drivers even though outliers do happen
> For every average there is an outlier, and women are human just as men are.
earlier you wrote there is no average, now apparently there is but there are also outliers. this is a much weaker statement and outliers are irrelevant anyways, if a group of 10000 people has 1 outlier and 9999 examples which follow the expectations then technically that satisfies your condition and yet it'd take some serious mental gymnastics to call this group a diverse one
>There are chemical differences within the brain that can lead to certain predispositions in certain contexts, but even these are too variable to accurately display Woman a paint by numbers. They're complicated and multitudinous
aka "I want to believe women are so special but they're really not so I'll instead tell them that investigating for potential similarities and regularities is nonsensical and makes me upset for ideological reasons"

[Anonymous No.16846301]

>>16846291
Schopenhauer would call you retarded. Disgrace.

[Anonymous No.16846312]

>>16846301
>no argument
like clockwork. BTW I think you forgot to call me an incel

[Anonymous No.16846322]

>>16846312
I'm just trying to distance Schopenhauer from retarded posts such as yours. If you believe you are an incel that's your business not mine.

[Anonymous No.16846335]

>>16846291
Darwin would like a word with you, Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.16846347]

>>16846335
>implying they are mutually incompatible
synthesized and refuted by von Hartmann (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.16846395]

>>16844345
>Female is as varied and spontaneous a group of human as any group of human.
yes, so are (for example) Germans. Yet, the vast majority of them speaks German. WEIRD how that works.
>Any attempt to ascribe a set standard of average personalities will surely lead you to failure.
no it won't. It's what the entire digital, ad-driven infrastructure is based on, and guess what, it works
>For every average there is an outlier
absolutely irrelevant to describe a trend. Just because the distribution isn't a dirac delta doesn't mean it can't be localized (up to an error).
>[factual differences] but even these are too variable to accurately display Woman a paint by numbers.
Averages don't have to reflect upon the individual, granted, but contextualize a group. If that context is abused is a different matter entirely.
>Treat each person you meet as a person with a mind as complex and ever changing as is your own.
It's easier to remember deviations of some commonly shared average than every single facet of every single individual you meet. That is why people categorize, and why stereotypes and archetypes exist. To encode a person using fewer resources than it would take to reproduce them (1 brain per person, one would hope)

[Anonymous No.16846416]

>>16846347
He was just inquiring what made Ol' Schopy so happy.

[Anonymous No.16847263]

>>16844425
A man of taste.

[Anonymous No.16847272]

>>16844345
too based for /lit/, I'm sorry the spergs have descended.

[Anonymous No.16847279]

>>16847272
this dumbfuck got refuted hard here
>>16846395
>>16846291

[Anonymous No.16847281]

>>16847279
All I see is cope.

[Anonymous No.16847388]

>>16844345
Absolutely beautiful example of what dilation does to an mf .

[Anonymous No.16847478]

>>16847281
>cope
If you think "there is absolutely no problem in looking at general trends if you can accept their limitations" is a cope, then be my guest. Abstraction is not for everyone.

[Anonymous No.16847486]

>>16846291
>>16846395
Both of you are answering a different post than the one you're arguing with. Had the OP asked, "Is the average woman attracted to a specific kind of literature?" or "Are females, generally speaking, attracted to a specific kind of literature?" you guys would be right. However, the OP said "Are females attracted to a specific kind of literature" as if being attracted to a particular kind of literature is an essential part of women in the same way having a vagina is. OP is a fag and used bad, imprecise language. You're now trying to make the question into a better one, which is admirable, but it doesn't respond to the post you're responding to, which simply argues that liking a form of literature isn't an essential trait of women.

[Anonymous No.16847512]

>>16844328
>>16847486
Just a quick addition, if we're asking the question, "What does the average woman read," we'd get the answer, "Nothing." Same thing with "What does the average man read?" I suppose we could ask, "What does the average female reader read," but then we have to define the "average female reader." How many books a year? How seriously do they have to take their reading?
Frankly, the original question needed to be extremely precise to have any meaning, and it wasn't formulated that way. Kill yourself, OP, for being incapable of stringing a sentence together.

[Anonymous No.16847578]

>>16844844
Women like old timey stuff because of the dresses.

[Anonymous No.16847695]

>>16847486
>Are females attracted to a specific kind of literature
yes. But I interpret the question in good faith, because I personally would not have gone out of my way to make a #notall disclaimer either. The idea to require needless fluff instead of conveying broad strokes and leaving parts of it to the reader is both impractical and inelegant, and I will not humor it.

[Anonymous No.16847711]

>>16847512
>but then we have to define the "average female reader." How many books a year? How seriously do they have to take their reading?
I see great value in that ambiguity, if used constructively.

[Anonymous No.16847727]

>>16844328
that thread reminds me of the dosto meme about how we all feel like we win when one of us wins.

[Anonymous No.16847759]

>>16847711
>>16847695
>if used constructively
It requires a lot of work on the responder's part to use it constructively. I now have to define my terms if I want to respond. I have to define what I consider a reader, etc. for my post to make sense. Otherwise, what I'm saying is just as ambiguous as the original post, and that's way too ambiguous (in my opinion, at least). There's a reason why none of the posts in this thread are very good, and that's because nobody really wanted to add the necessary specificity which the OP left out. I think, generally, the OP should ask a question which can be answered, not a question that needs further formulation by the reader to make clear sense.

[Anonymous No.16847804]

>>16847759
I agree that the thread did not work out well on the terms OP laid out. I do sometimes enjoy putting in the effort in such cases, but this is not a topic I would feel comfortable answering beyond an anecdotal level (which on its own also can have merits in the right hands). But all of that is my personal preference, I acknowledge that. I also see your point, though. Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.16847844]

>>16846033
I believe it because I love it fucker. Wonderful women in my life.
>>16846291
>burger reading comprehension.
>>16846395
Lazy non humanist response. All peopleblikebyou are shallow and morally depraved. White guilt is an observed phenomenon and I dont buy into that bullshit. Maybe I should though judgung by some of the incel rants on 4chinz.

[Anonymous No.16847855]

>>16844345
Actually, males are more diverse than females in just about any way you measure them. It's basic biology: search for "Greater Male Variability Hypothesis".

You are welcome.

[Anonymous No.16847879]

>>16847855
As if I give a fuck. This doesnt mean women aren't highly variable as well. The observed averages you anons keep trying to pull a gotcha with are petty impersonal things. My point is that by immediately assuming who someone is based on their gender you make yourself look the fool, humans of every type are fairly unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.16847887]

>>16847844
>White guilt
Noooo those stereotypes about whites are all false. Only the ones aboit women are true

[Anonymous No.16847904]

>>16847844
>Lazy non humanist response. All people like you are shallow and morally depraved.
Take your meds. There is absolutely nothing about this that is "non humanist" unless what you make of it. If the existence of any measurable correlation between biological features and personal interests threatens your personhood, then it wasn't well-defined to begin with.

[Anonymous No.16847908]

>>16847879
triggered roastie

[Anonymous No.16847923]

>>16847904
The thing is you fuckin clown. I never denied the existemce of averages. Only that tge totalozong variety pf horseshit steroetypes semminated here do not provide a basis for measuring anyone on an individual level. I can only imagine searching for statistical averages among various populations as a coping mechanism employed by extremely unhappy people who lack self-awareness. For if you can be aware of your subjective self, logically you should be aware that others are also a complex and subjective self.

[Anonymous No.16847932]

>>16847879
Why are you so triggered by people seeing patterns in human variability? You are clearly a lumper, and by the amount of salt, a lumper on HRT.

[Anonymous No.16847946]

>>16844328
Yeah women like stupid and dumb books because women are stupid and dumb

[Anonymous No.16847970]

>>16847923
>[people's personal experiences] do not provide a basis for measuring anyone on an individual level
I won't argue about that.
>I can only imagine searching for statistical averages among various populations as a coping mechanism employed by extremely unhappy people who lack self-awareness
It's not something I would do in my freetime, but statistical data is a valid way to combat stereotypes. I'll give you that people usually seek to enforce them, instead.
> For if you can be aware of your subjective self, logically you should be aware that others are also a complex and subjective self.
There are more reasons to try and find a general trend among a certain class of people (no matter how large or small) than to delude oneself into thinking they are all programmed NPCs. It can simply be useful in social situations before you have the chance to know more about the person in question. That's how social interaction works.

[Anonymous No.16848013]

>>16847932
How are these anons who've never held a woman observing patterns in variability?

[Anonymous No.16848035]

>>16847970
Im not denying that. Never did in fact. Only offerred that its a poor indicator of the spontaneity of human personality. I mean we aren't discussing statisticsl averages in this thread. We're discussing what females like to read, and the only real answer is that females like males like to read just about anything. Sure, there are probably observed differences, is its BECAUSE of gender though? Environmental factors? Cultural differences? It's just a silly circular debate. Better to assume you know nothing of a strangers personal preferences than to assume they fit some mold towards a mathematical average.

[Anonymous No.16848099]

>>16848035
>Only offerred that its a poor indicator of the spontaneity of human personality.
fair enough.
>Sure, there are probably observed differences, is its BECAUSE of gender though?
Since correlation does not mean causation, I would not just jump to that conclusion, as you said, other possibilities.
>Better to assume you know nothing of a strangers personal preferences than to assume they fit some mold towards a mathematical average.
I think a little bit of presumption is unavoidable in certain contexts, but I think we can easily agree that this discussion veers into the domain of nuances.

[Anonymous No.16848163]

>>16848099
>I think a little bit of presumption is unavoidable in certain contexts
No doubt, and there's an innane nagging part of the brain that wants to define others, problem is itsehard enough to even define ourselves. I'll admit I have a highly public job and overcoming personal biases was absolutely necessary to avoid treating people who need me with contempt or just becoming bitter in general. I should realize that everyone hasn't been forced to do so. Also, I think our biases are sources of comfort for many, they crave to know others but can't possibly so they rely on cuktural stereotypes to shake that feeling of dread when confronting another who subconsciously they know that they can't possibly know the mind of the other. It can be terrifying that uncertainty...

[Anonymous No.16848183]

>>16848163
I butchered that a little but you get the gist.

[Anonymous No.16848679]

>>16848163
>>16848035
>>16848099
>>16848099
>>16848163
So you would not run away from a tiger because, if so, you would be assuming it's gonna behave like every other man-eating tiger? Please stop larping about not judging the world around you.

[Anonymous No.16848685]

>>16846166
>>16846151
Does it ever bother anybody that the "incel" version of these images is always like 500% accurate?

[Anonymous No.16848689]

>>16848679
I meant: larping about being virtuously non-judgemental

[Anonymous No.16848703]

>>16847904
>>16847923
>>16847970
>>16848035
>>16848099
>>16848163
>>16848679
Literally all of you are just retreading this discussion:
>>16847486
>>16847695
>>16847711
>>16847759
>>16847804
Can we all just admit OP is a faggot and move on?

[Anonymous No.16848705]

>>16848679

[Anonymous No.16848712]

>>16848679
Lol tigers are people. The absolute state. In reality though, I probably wouldn't panic, tigers know humans are dangerous and there's a greater chance he would choose easier prey.

[Anonymous No.16848720]

>>16848685
500% accuracy is not a possibility. I do not understand.

[Anonymous No.16848929]

>>16844345
such a midwit superficial take, you think this is a big brain response? you should unironically kill yourself for being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.16848962]

>>16848929
I know. All women are dumb and inferior to men in every way. Idk why I can't get laid though

[Anonymous No.16849288]

>>16848962
Hole >>16846166
>>16846251

[Anonymous No.16849356]

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH IM SO LONELY AND HORNY AAAAAAAHHH

[Anonymous No.16849386]

Art hoes are not worth dating, they age the worst of all kinds of women

[Anonymous No.16849394]

>>16846105
Based

>>16846151
'haha some useless psychobabble and I will wreck this INCEL', you have to go back

picrel is me on friday swimming in 6 degrees celcius water

[Anonymous No.16849404]

>>16846151

[Anonymous No.16849415]

Are there any good books about the experiences of liberated women who don't have any crotchspawn dragging on their time and finances so they have tons of time to go on vacations and meet exciting new boys? #yolo

[Anonymous No.16849423]

>>16849415

[Anonymous No.16849446]

>>16849423
That picture is offensive and misogynistic. Please don't post any more like that. In case you don't know what I mean I am including a highly misogynistic image as an example.

[Anonymous No.16849459]

>>16849446
OK I'm sorry, here a picture to confirm that I understood what you were saying.

[Anonymous No.16849515]

>>16847486
Oh so you have autism? Or are you applying death of the author to the op post like a faggot? We all know what op meant. He meant on average, what kind of books are women more likely to read than men, this is painfully obvious to anyone. You giving some fluffed up pompous response because he didn't word it perfectly should make you feel very embarrassed

[Anonymous No.16849553]

>>16849415
Why should they actually have kids? They are little shits and I hate them

[Anonymous No.16849568]

>>16849515
>we all know what op meant
I certainly didn't. >>16844345 certainly didn't. That's why they specifically argued against the creation of "a set standard of average personalities" being used to make general rules for that average. If it was clear to you, then great, but it wasn't to me, and it wasn't to a lot of the people in this discussion (which is why there's been a lot of arguments here over the usage of averages to make general rules about a group).
Anyway, it seems more autistic to assume we are talking about the mathematical average whenever we ascribe a character trait to any group than to assume we mean rules which are true for each individual in that group.

[Anonymous No.16849626]

>>16844376
thanks for the thread link, made me smile :)

[Anonymous No.16849662]

>>16849515
Lmfao. Its 4chan. He wanted to invoke a discussion about how women are less than men so that incels could circle jerk avout how much brighter and more superior they are despite little evidence to suggest that they're anything more than mental pissants biting the toe of the true ubermensch who judge people individually and try to deal with their internal biases not because its polotically correct, but because it causes them to be closee to the reality we all live.

[Anonymous No.16849677]

>>16849662
>how fucking mad this tranny is

[Anonymous No.16850148]

My sister reads horror novels and murder mysteries.

[Anonymous No.16850154]

Women like crime or law novels.

[Anonymous No.16850266]

>>16844328
Fujoshit
>t. fujo

[Anonymous No.16850378]

>>16844974
Fuck I haven’t read that in like 7 years

[Anonymous No.16851396]

>>16849415
that baby looks like verne troyer

[Anonymous No.16851619]

>>16844974
onions

[Anonymous No.16851636]

>>16844345
>>16844490
> ;)
You have to be a woman, which explains the fucking gobbledygook you wrote.

[Anonymous No.16851644]

>>16848720
>autism or arguing in bad faith or a shitty joke with the only punchline being themself

[Anonymous No.16851646]

>>16850266
You wanna be my gf? I'm a faggot and I hate women btw.

[Anonymous No.16851666]

>>16851646
I want to bend you over fuck that boypussy

[Anonymous No.16852041]

>>16844345
Nice pasta faggot

[Anonymous No.16852161]

>>16844345
Kind of based, kind of not

But if you hate women, your life will be miserable. You dont even have to give up your belief in their inferiority, just stop hating them because otherwise, it just wont work man, you cant be a man and hate women and enjoy your life without being a sociopath

[Anonymous No.16852899]

>>16844328
currently rereading lysis & symposium, still can't wrap my head around this classical dichotomy