/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17887698]

Why does it seem like Lit hates women so much? I've heard so many people on this board say that women have written nothing of value, is it just a meme or do people seriously believe that? Reading To the Lighthouse and it's one of the most enjoyable experience I've had reading.

[Anonymous No.17887700]

>>17887698
People are just memeing bitterly, I assume.

[Anonymous No.17887725]

>Inb4 Frater btfoed Woolf
Women can and have transcended the limitations of their gender and have written stuff of worth. It just isn't as good as what males can write. Plus everyone on lit constantly has to reaffirm that women are stupid because they are constantly gaslit about it by goyiety. Women are stupid poopybrains.

[Anonymous No.17887732]

>>17887725
Fratr is ded.

[Anonymous No.17887765]

Women are an invasive species. Women are theoretically capable of possessing a soul, but most of them don't for the simple reason that it's not necessary, and in fact it's even punished in most cases. The safest, happiest, easiest way to live as a woman is to be a walking life support system for your vagina, which you trade for attention, protection, favors, companionship, etc. Even when they are not directly trading their pussy for something, they still live within a social system that presumes women are important and worth having around because they have pussies.

Women are on autopilot through life unless they actively choose not to be, and all a woman gets for choosing to be a real person and develop a soul is social ostracism, depression, lack of understanding and jealousy from other women, and bitterness from their relations with men, most of whom either want to worship them for having a pussy, or they want a submissive sidekick in a partner, or they actively hate women (for understandable reasons since most are shit).

All this would be fine if women stayed in womanly spaces but they don't. Their insatiable lust for attention and inner emptiness drives them to colonize spaces not yet ruined by them. Because most men are horny simps, they will welcome shitty women and accelerate this process unless thoroughly acculturated to anti-simp and anti-thot behaviors. These behaviors do not come naturally to men, they have to be established with deep traditions and lots of reinforcement. 4chan cultivates a culture of misogyny to keep these thots out, to keep the worst simps out because of the dearth of thots, and to keep weak men within the community from becoming simps. It took years to build this up to healthy levels and it still requires constant maintenance to keep it keen.

Virulent misogyny is one way of maintaining it. The fact that tourist roasties and normalfags react so bad to it is manifest proof of its necessity and efficacy, which is why it works so well. Stupid roasties accustomed to being accepted just because they're a token woman or because the local simps welcome them are baffled by even mild misogynistic banter, and leave. Simps are ridiculed. Women with souls can post anonymously and not be simped at or lusted after for once in their lives. Everybody wins.

[Anonymous No.17887800]

>>17887765
Based

[Anonymous No.17887828]

Woolf isn't bad but she's in the shadow of Proust. Jane Austen is the greatest pleb filter among women writers.

[Anonymous No.17888125]

>>17887828
>Woolf isn't bad but she's in the shadow of Proust
you haven't read Proust or read him in English

[Anonymous No.17888130]

>>17887698
Because the 9 incels on /lit/ have no life and spend all of their waking hours here trying to get a 10th.

[Anonymous No.17888133]

>>17887698
I just pretend to hate women so 4channers don't ask me to post tits.

[Anonymous No.17888157]

>>17887828
I thought Pride and Prejudice was boring a lot of the time. Is it her best?

[Anonymous No.17888162]

>>17888125
fag

[Anonymous No.17888180]

>>17888125
>he can't recite the iliad from memory with fully-authentic pronunciation

[Anonymous No.17888190]

>>17887765
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17888195]

>>17888133
Please post feet instead m’lady. And your current read to keep it on topic

[Anonymous No.17888809]

>>17887698
of course it is a meme

[Anonymous No.17888811]

>>17887725
>>17887732
>Fratboy Semen Guzzler
>intelligent
The dude is a bitter incel posing as an academic. He is a sad creature.

[Anonymous No.17888824]

>>17888125
It was a self-acknowledged debt you pseud

[Anonymous No.17888848]

>>17888811
t. seething ducksposter

[Anonymous No.17888863]

>>17887765
Hello, based department?

[Anonymous No.17888870]

[Anonymous No.17888879]

>>17887698
https://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

>One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.

>Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.

>With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.

>Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest. Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing, and so on, they give their serious attention.

[Anonymous No.17888880]

>>17888879
>The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.

>As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.

[Anonymous No.17888882]

>>17888880
>It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.

[Anonymous No.17888883]

>>17888882
>Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated. For the secret, unformulated, nay, unconscious but innate moral of woman is: We are justified in deceiving those who, because they care a little for us,—that is to say for the individual,—imagine they have obtained rights over the species. The constitution, and consequently the welfare of the species, have been put into our hands and entrusted to our care through the medium of the next generation which proceeds from us; let us fulfil our duties conscientiously.

>But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle in abstracto, they are only conscious of it in concreto, and have no other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater. (A fuller explanation of this matter may be found in vol. ii., ch. 44, in my chief work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.)

[Anonymous No.17888884]

>>17887765
so true!

[Anonymous No.17888886]

>>17888883
>Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.

>It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to render prominent the differences of rank.

>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

[Anonymous No.17888890]

>>17888886
>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.

[Anonymous No.17888908]

>>17887725
People are allowed to not like or enjoy particular things which other people do like and enjoy and it's better this way else there'd only be one kind of cake.

[Anonymous No.17888925]

>>17887698
I love Zadie Smith! And Flannery O'Connor!

[I hate women No.17888934]

>>17887765
Actual insightful post. based

[Anonymous No.17888936]

Most women have a particular tone when they write and I find it insuffrable

[Anonymous No.17889302]

>>17888848
Stay in your poetry threads Semen Guzzler. You're way out of bounds when you try to talk about narrative fiction.

[Anonymous No.17889388]

>>17889302
Calm your psychosis. I'm just amused by your obsession with a tripfag who isn't even in this thread. You could've at least pretended you're not the ducksposter, although 'Fratboy Semen Guzzler' was always going to give it away.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17889523]

>>17887725
I’ve never claimed that women cannot ever write and I routinely post a list of women who I consider high quality.

>>17887732
I’m still here, I’ve simply been posting less.

>>17888811
How are you still seething? Also calling me an incel doesn’t work, I have a wife and 3 kids.

>>17889302
>>17889388
I’m not even how just asking the basics of why they like their piece of fiction has engraved myself so much in their brain, absolutely rent free.

[Anonymous No.17889570]

>>17887765
basado y rojo pastillado

[Anonymous No.17889624]

>>17887698
All the racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. You see on here is partly genuine and partly the immune system of this place. Create an environment that is unrepetently anti-woke/pc and you stop or at least retard the influence of commercial forces. No wants to run ads where the discourse/userbase is this degenerate and this lack of commercial viability ironically keeps this platform one of the few decent places on the internet, one of the last holdovers from before every website was owned by one of 5 companies.

[Anonymous No.17890155]

>>17887765
>4chan
>healthy
pick one

[Anonymous No.17890168]

>>17887698
If you have ever been in a group on anything with /lit/ people you would see the sort of people who use this website (it's kids under 25). Then after that it all becomes very obvious.

[Anonymous No.17890821]

>>17887765
Saved

[Anonymous No.17890848]

>>17887765
βασεδ

[Anonymous No.17891305]

>>17887698
Good book, the waves is also cool
Toni Morrison has good stuff too that's directly inspired by woolf and faulkner but you wouldn't know it from trusting anyones opinion in this shithole
Pretty much the only other woman I've read worth discussing here is Ursula k leguin who is one of the few sci fi writers to achieve frank herbert tier imo

[Anonymous No.17891337]

>>17887698
I occasionally make some meme comment about women but it's not serious, it's the same way I frequently accuse French of being subhuman, i still read plenty of women and frogs.

There are some especially seething people here who really do despise women but that goes with the territory, you can't be misogynist on much of the internet, so they end up in places like 4ch with little moderation.

[Anonymous No.17891395]

>>17887698
they say it to be cool on a basket weaving forum

[Anonymous No.17892092]

>>17887765
I printed this (to test my new printer but still)

[Anonymous No.17892119]

4chan got swamped with incel types a few years back. A few of them leak onto /lit/

[Anonymous No.17892145]

It filtered me.

[Anonymous No.17892201]

>>17887698
I like some women writers but I hate Virginia Woolf. She was a dumb bitch.

[Anonymous No.17892230]

>>17888824
Your the pseud, there styles are completly diffrent. If you had read them you would know that, anyone whos read both would know that.

[Anonymous No.17892261]

>>17887765
>t.

[Anonymous No.17892423]

>>17892230
Woolf’s obsession with Proust is sufficiently well-documented as to be in the realm of critical cliché. Whether or not you think Woolf was as effective a documentarian of the mental interior as him, it is preposterous to suggest that her work bears no resemblance to Proust’s when he was an overriding influence on her.

[Anonymous No.17892482]

>>17889523
>I have a wife and 3 kids.
Why are you here?

[Anonymous No.17892555]

>>17892092
I ripped it up and threw it away in case my family might have come across it, sorry anon

[Anonymous No.17892563]

>>17888157
No, Persuasion is her best work but I like Emma the most.

[Anonymous No.17892571]

>>17887698
To the Lighthouse is amazing desu, but I was filtered hard by The Waves bc I think it's the most boring piece of shit I ever read.

[Anonymous No.17892721]

>>17892423
>Woolf liked Proust so Woolf exists in the shadow of him
Retard. Measuring Woolf to Proust is a sure sign you haven't read Proust. At least comparing Woolf and Joyce makes sense.

[Anonymous No.17892757]

>>17887765
>this isn't a copy pasta

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17892890]

>>17892482
I’ve been here since 2005, also been on irc for a long time. I don’t use Facebook or the like so I basically just use 4chan as others use Facebook.

[Anonymous No.17893443]

>>17892890
How old are your kids Frater?

[Anonymous No.17893502]

Austen, the Brontes, Eliot, and Dickinson are the only ones who should be considered canonical. But yes, there are plenty of fine minor women writers.

[Anonymous No.17893505]

>>17892890
I fee bad for your kids. Imagine telling your dad about this great book you read and how you think he would like it. Then he tells you what you said isn't good enough. That you have to write a critical essay which dissects the philosophical themes of a novel before you can even think of recommending a book to someone else. Imagine if that was your father.

[Anonymous No.17893844]

>>17887765
based. women should not be welcomed here, and if they are it should not be because they are women.

[Anonymous No.17894658]

>>17892890
You should save your effort posts for the future generations, in a blog, now.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17895160]

>>17893505
That sounds unironically good.

>>17894658
Eh, warosu exists and I do have a little diary blog but it’s just me going unfiltered with my philosophy and poetry.

>>17893443
I won’t say, just because I like to keep some stuff ya now.

[Anonymous No.17895169]

>>17893502
shut up anglo

[Anonymous No.17895273]

>>17893505
I kek'd.

[Anonymous No.17895346]

>>17892721
You’re completely disingenuous in bringing up other writers as it isn’t a mutually exclusive question. If you’re a reader of either writer so shallow that you can’t perceive the reception of Proust in Woolf, regardless of whether she’s better or not, you’re simply proving you shouldn’t be listened to on either author.

[Anonymous No.17895583]

>>17888870
this

[Anonymous No.17895590]

>>17895346
You read Proust in English or haven't read him.

[Anonymous No.17895599]

>>17895590
Thanks for your concession

[Anonymous No.17895612]

>>17889523
>I routinely post a list of women who I consider high quality.
Post it bro.

Also what did you say about Woolf? I'm out of the loop.

[Anonymous No.17895636]

>>17895599
more than just myself could tell you haven't read Proust. Stop trying. It is obvious and pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17895648]

>>17895636
Once again, no argument, so once again, your concession is accepted

[Anonymous No.17895661]

>>17887698
Great book, love the second act

[Anonymous No.17895707]

I don't hate women, in general, but I feel a lot of disdain for girls nowadays. Also I strongly believe that for a woman, in order to be a great author, has to be "defective", so mental problems and similar things. A totally normal women doesn't have the soul to produce something wortwhile literally speaking

[Anonymous No.17895824]

>>17895707
Most great thinkers are in some way "defective." It's just a given that most intelligent people are a lot more neurotic just because they are capable of deeper introspection than most.

[Anonymous No.17896074]

>>17895824
It's true. But in my opinion, women must be really neurotic in order to be a great thinker. Is one of the conditions of course, not the only one. Instead, men don't have to be so fucked up

[Anonymous No.17897109]

>>17887765

Absolute kino.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17897209]

>>17895612
>Marguerite Porete
>Hildegard of Bingen
>Jane Leade
>Edith Stein
>Bhairavi/Devi/kali
>Marie-Louise von Franz
>Wei Huacun
>Mary Sidney
>Saint Teresa of Avila

Also here’s the link to the whole Virginia Woolf thing.

>>/lit/thread/S17553545#p17557648

Anons keep bringing it up so I guess a lot of anons agreed with my problems.

[Anonymous No.17897261]

>>17887765
Based
Fuck womeme

[Anonymous No.17897417]

Because men hate women, in a general sense, and this site consists mostly of men.

[Anonymous No.17897564]

>>17887765
Spending time on this has really deepen my exposure to misogynist propaganda and at this point I'm not even sure what my views on females have become.