/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17188622]

Is anyone familiar with any writers that have explored (or argued against, perhaps) the relationships between men and women and how they interact with the world, not through the lens of patriarchal structures that oppress women (Which seem to ignore roughly half of the people who have been oppressed) but have explored the ideas that the different functions men and women have historically held in most societies is not one of male dominance at the expense of women, but male dominance as a function of carrying the burden of responsibilities to free women to engage in what seems to be the entire point of life - propagation of the species. From virus to human this appears to be the largest driving force. The preponderance of viewing the dyadic mother-child relationship as sacred looks to be about as old as mythology itself.

I would like to think further about this but really am starting from a point of next to no knowledge, so a bit of reading might help me nut this about a bit easier. Hoping this idea isn't so stupid that no ones bothered to write anything down about it - but that's usually how it goes.

[Anonymous No.17188696]

>>17188622
>the mother child relationship is sacred because of evolution wanting us to propagate
No.

[Anonymous No.17188754]

>>17188696
I used the word sacred to mean of the utmost importance, rather than as something gifted by God. Although I'm not so sure the difference is actually meaningful here. Surely whatever your thoughts on the existence or even idea of God isn't really an issue here.

Or perhaps you take issue with the idea of the mother-child relationship being sacred? Or is it evolution itself? I thought /lit/ was a good Catholic board?

[Anonymous No.17188879]

>>17188754
Yes, in hindsight I can see I wasn't very clear. I will respond later, but can only say now that determining value by its at one point materially developed "instincts," is stupid but also nihilising.

[Anonymous No.17190139]

>>17188622
>what seems to be the entire point of life - propagation of the species.

What makes you think so?

[Anonymous No.17190568]

Bump..

[Anonymous No.17190866]

>>17190139
Because it's the one thing that all life seems to share. Even today when there may be a general trend to view having children as less important to more people we still constantly see talk of improving the world for the future population.

If we didn't, at the least, hold having children as of one of the most fundamentally important reasons for living, why would we be arguing the necessity of increasing the suffering, primarily of the poor, to reversing man-made climate change?

[Anonymous No.17190895]

This thread is going to suck ass.
No one will rec books.
Everyone going to hate women for 300+ posts.
How exciting.
Jannies don't do their job.
Here's the first book that came to mind OP.
But OP will say "oh that's not exactly what I'm looking for" because he just wants to make a shitty thread.
Fuck this website.
I'm trapped here forever.

[Anonymous No.17191001]

>>17190895
Are you a halfwit or deliberately trying to be a fucktard? The question doesn't imply any sort of call to hate on women. It's asking for any recommendations on an alternate viewpoint of the history of the relationship between man and woman. Certainly a book that is ' A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships' surely falls severely short of a philosophical, biological, culturally or religious discussion about the nature of the functions of men and women and how that has shaped society around them.

I know /lit/ doesn't actually read, but you should at least try.

[Anonymous No.17191042]

>>17191001
I can't wait for 100+ posts directed at the OP of people sharing their beautifully articulated opinions on women. I bet it will be the highest quality of threads.

[Anonymous No.17191045]

>>17190866

All life also shares defecation.