/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19602806]

>/.../ if by nature women were equal to men, and were equally distinguished by force of character and ability, in which human power and therefore human right chiefly consist; surely among nations so many and different some would be found, where both sexes rule alike, and others, where men are ruled by women, and so brought up, that they can make less use of their abilities. And since this is nowhere the case, one may assert with perfect propriety, that women have not by nature equal right with men.

refute this
you literally can't

[Anonymous No.19602809]

>>19602806
>The redemption of woman into participation in the nature of man is the outcome of christian-Germanic evolution. The Greek remained in ignorance of the psychic process of the ennobling of woman to the rank of man, To him everything appeared under its direct, unmediated aspect,—woman to him was woman, and man was man; and thus at the point where his love to woman was satisfied in accordance with nature, arose the spiritual demand for man.

[Anonymous No.19602825]

it's the truth ye

[Anonymous No.19602832]

>>19602806
>by nature

[Anonymous No.19602835]

>>19602832
You will never be a real woman.

[Anonymous No.19603027]

>>19602809
leave wagner to me

[Anonymous No.19603076]

>>19603027
>t. bernd

[Anonymous No.19603100]

>>19602806
It's like I've always said: if men and women were truly equal, we would be equal.

[Anonymous No.19603118]

>>19602806
Refuted by Engles in his analysis of the Origin of Family. Male centric societies are a result of private ownership and earlier societies focused on production for sustenence, instead of production for profit, were equalitarian if not a bit matriarchal.

[Anonymous No.19603139]

>>19603118
>Male centric societies are a result of private ownership
>dimorphic species
>one sex is bigger, stronger, more violent, does not give birth and has more outliers in intelligence
>"i-it was private ownership"

It baffles me that there are some people still taking left wing thought seriously


>earlier societies focused on production for sustenence, instead of production for profit, were equalitarian if not a bit matriarchal.
>earlier

Earlier than what?

[Anonymous No.19603142]

Spinoza's central problem here, is that it's a circular argument. He is essentially saying, that if women were equal, they'd be equal; as they are not, they must be not.

Now the effective way out of his circle is to gather evidence, that women are not equal. However, he had no access to the myriad societies in both past and future where this was not the case, in post-suffrage nations. There was no Merkel, no Meier. He clearly chose to ignore Elizabeth I to provide any sought-after counterexamples. But lack of evidence aside, he ignored a possible common cause and focused on the irrelevance of gender.

What he could have noted (if he was a zoologist), is that in terms of average physical height, female humans are smaller among their local region. This would support an inductive premise (and one, it turns out, is much more accurate), that smaller humans do not "rule" alike, and "can make less use of their abilities". He could have reflected on how behavior and social mores can change, radically so, affecting political power– but he did not.

[Anonymous No.19603168]

>>19603118
sooooo you're saying patriarchy is a higher level of civilization than fuckign matriarchal tribes of indigenous people in north america who lived in fucking mud huts and couldn't read or write? based

[Anonymous No.19603169]

>>19603139
>Earlier than what?
Earlier than patriarchal societies focused on production for profit. Work on your reading comprehension.
>one sex is bigger, stronger, more violent does not give birth
Meaningless for the discussion at hand
>has more outliers in intelligence
This is just reified prejudice.

[Anonymous No.19603181]

>>19603139
i don't get this, people always bring up that book by engels in defense of feminism but it doesn't make sense. are they saying we should go back to living in fucking mud huts like savage matriarchal societies? also that book fucking sucked

[Anonymous No.19603184]

>>19603139
Not him but Engels' reasoning in this book is a little more nuanced. He basically argues that in very early stages of human development biological considerations must have been taken very seriously hence the idea of family ties arose as a means to inhibit incestual relationships which notoriously produced offspring of low genetic quality. In the beginning only maternal line of descent was acknowledged because only the mother of a child is certain with 100% certainty and from that he arrives at a notion of primitive matriarchy or what Bachofen calls Mutterrecht.

[Anonymous No.19603187]

>>19603168
>sooooo you're saying patriarchy is a higher level of civilization
No, I'm not saying that.
>than fuckign matriarchal tribes of indigenous people in north america who lived in fucking mud huts and couldn't read or write
Lmao your lack of education is showing. We know about these cultured precisely because they creates rich traditions, both oral and in writing.

[Anonymous No.19603191]

>>19603187 Based woman enjoyer dabbing on the incel >>19603168

[Anonymous No.19603192]

>>19603169
>duuuuude let's just, like, abolish capitalism and civilization and go back to living in mud huts like primitive matriarchal savages
>ha-HA capitalism btfo! checkmate misogynists

[Anonymous No.19603193]

>>19603142
>He is essentially saying, that if women were equal, they'd be equal;

No, not at all. He is saying that if men and women were truly equal(in force of character and ability) there would be societies in which men rule, societies in which man and women rule and societies in which women rule. He likely assumes that different outcomes would largely be caused by chance or other enviromental factors.

[Anonymous No.19603200]

>>19603192
>subhuman 50 IQ post
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.19603201]

>>19603187
>We know about these cultured precisely because they creates rich traditions, both oral and in writing.
suuuuuuure they do buddy. pounding a stupid drum and going "wimba-waya" while passing around the peace pipe and telling stories about wolves and birds and shit. such a rich tradition.

[Anonymous No.19603207]

>>19603201
You're embarassing yourself on the chinese basked weaving forum, buddy. Read some history and become human or keep acting as the designated clown, I couldn't care less.

[Anonymous No.19603212]

>>19603200
>muh advanced matriarchal mud hut society
>muh feminisms
>muh virgin engels
let me guess, you're probably "queer" and a gender abolitionist too, right?

[Anonymous No.19603217]

>>19603187
>We know about these cultured precisely because they creates rich traditions, both oral and in writing.
No, we know about them because Christian missionaries were interested in investigating their cultures and produced rich accounts of their ways of life for the Western reader (that is not to absolve them from the sin of erasing equally many cultures). This would have been evident to you if you had read this book by Engels you mentioned which you didn't

[Anonymous No.19603218]

hell ya big 'noza droppin bombs making cultural marxists seethe

[Anonymous No.19603223]

Classic naturalistic fallacy.

Are we really going to be out here saying Stephen Hawking is an inferior being, because he would have died and his discoveries been impossible to communicate in a "natural" setting?

Women are typically weaker. Being the birthers of the species doesn't help.

Good analogy is that we all have the same hardware, but different software. Women's software historically has looked like: have lots of kids, lack of co-parent, sole person responsible for domestic sphere; no husband --> burden to society.

If you look at the women greats, they pretty much all have something in common: stable and independent income (or support of family), unusual independence for their time, and all of their greatest contributions pre-existed marital existence.

[Anonymous No.19603224]

>>19603169
>Earlier than patriarchal societies
>societies earlier then patriarchal societies were not patriarchal
>societies earlier than industrialized societies were not industrialized.

Genius


>Meaningless for the discussion at hand

It devastates the idiotic idea that private ownership causes societies to be patriarchal by providing a more sensible alternative theory.

>This is just reified prejudice.

It's neither reified nor prejudice

[Anonymous No.19603227]

>>19603217
>book by coauthor of the communist manifesto
yes i'm sure it's totally unbiased and presenting the information in an honest way as we know leftists do

[Anonymous No.19603230]

>>19603207
>implying they don't teach u about muh advanced first nation culture in fucking elementary school
you're legitimately retarded, no wonder you defend feminism. what, do you think that makes you morally superior? do you think it'll get you laid? pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19603237]

>>19603223
>if you look at the women greats
such as? name one who wasn't a scientist or virginia woolf

[Anonymous No.19603239]

>>19603169
>Earlier than patriarchal societies
>societies earlier then patriarchal societies were not patriarchal
>societies earlier than industrialized societies were not industrialized.

Genius


>Meaningless for the discussion at hand

It provides a more sensible theory to why societies are patriarchal. There is no obvious process of causation between private ownership and patriarchy but there between those things I mentioned and patriarchy.

>This is just reified prejudice.

It's neither reified nor prejudice

[Anonymous No.19603241]

>>19603192
Again that's not Engels' point in this book. I'm a rightoid myself but /pol/tards like you make me embarrassed of my political views. His shtick is to prove to the European reader that family is necessarily a mutable thing which as changed over time and will probably keep on changing due to improvements in material circumstances. It's also an attempt to vindicate the materialist way of viewing history

[Anonymous No.19603242]

>>19603223
>Good analogy is that we all have the same hardware, but different software.

It's a terrible analogy, we all have different hardware and different software

[Anonymous No.19603251]

>>19603239
>but there

but there is*

[Anonymous No.19603257]

>>19603184
>In the beginning only maternal line of descent was acknowledged because only the mother of a child is certain with 100% certainty and from that he arrives at a notion of primitive matriarchy or what Bachofen calls Mutterrecht.

So he speculated about a time period without written history? Holy shit, this gets worse ans worse

[Anonymous No.19603260]

>>19603241
i'm actually a marxist but i hate that book. it makes me question if i'm a marxist at all because i hate feminism.
>His shtick is to prove to the European reader that family is necessarily a mutable thing which as changed over time
yes that's true, but i don't see why people always bring it up wrt feminism, seems erroneous.
>will probably keep on changing due to improvements in material circumstances
i wouldn't call the exponential increase of single mothers under neoliberalism an "improvement," anon.

[Anonymous No.19603265]

>>19603184
>In the beginning only maternal line of descent was acknowledged because only the mother of a child is certain with 100% certainty and from that he arrives at a notion of primitive matriarchy or what Bachofen calls Mutterrecht.

So he speculated about a time period without written history? Holy shit, this gets worse and worse

[Anonymous No.19603267]

>>19603223
mary kay ash was a single mother of three. didn't stop her from eventually starting a billion dollar business. in fact her sons helped her with seed capital. good thing she didn't abort them i guess.

[Anonymous No.19603268]

>>19603257
it literally has nothing to do with neoliberal feminism whatsosever, i don't know why people bring that book up in defense of neoliberal feminism.

[Anonymous No.19603280]

>>19603217
The cultures included in this theory include even early Karelian and Finnish societies of which we have rich oral traditions preserved. You would have known this if your knowledge on the subject wasn't limited to skimming wikipedia for the past 20 minutes.

[Anonymous No.19603300]

>>19603280
oh... damn... guess it kind of does refute spinoza

[Anonymous No.19603308]

>When the family bond is close and exclusive, herds form only in exceptional cases. When on the other hand free sexual intercourse or polygamy prevails, the herd comes into being almost spontaneously

leftism is banal but evil which is the most deadly kind

[Anonymous No.19603311]

>>19603187
>We know about these cultured precisely because they creates rich traditions, both oral and in writing.

>>19603280
>rich oral traditions

Kek, I really hope you are trolling, because your posts are not factual or convincing. Only Mayans, Aztecs, etc had a written language, and none of them were a matriarchy. Want to defend women? Great, but don't be dumber than poltards. Try reading real books and not just Hegelian/Marxist nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19603330]

>>19603239
>It provides a more sensible theory to why societies are patriarchal. There is no obvious process of causation between private ownership and patriarchy
The mode of production for profit transitioned the matriarchal society concerned with matrilinearity into the patriarchal one concerned with family name and inheritance of profit.
>between those things I mentioned and patriarchy
Those things you mentioned are nothing more than uncultured conservative prejudices, they are not supported by any serios analysis.

[Anonymous No.19603343]

>>19603311
Nobody talks about Aztecs here, why do poltard always end up seeking refuge in the most retarded arguments that have nothing to do with the topic?

[Anonymous No.19603348]

>>19603330
>The mode of production for profit transitioned the matriarchal society concerned with matrilinearity into the patriarchal one concerned with family name and inheritance of profit.

It doesn't follow, there is no obvious causation and it seems more likely human societies have always been ranging from very few semi-matriarchal societies to more common ultra-patriarchal societies and everything in between

>Those things you mentioned are nothing more than uncultured conservative prejudices

Males have more intelligence outliers than female. This is a fact

[Anonymous No.19603361]

>>19603330
>they are not supported by any serios analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

Read a serious book once in a while, drop the left wing charlatans

[Anonymous No.19603362]

Engels was a fucking braindead idiot. Every communal formation mustneeds be determined, determination can only stem from power and its representations: piatriarchy and social institutions. The institution of family was among the determinations for the coherence of the community, without which violence would again fragment the entire social group—leading it into savagery again. There cannot be any kind of organization without determination and only power can determine.

[Anonymous No.19603375]

>>19603348
>It doesn't follow
It does follow. You're just too caught up in pol discourse to engage with other ideas.
"Males have more intelligence outliers than female. This is a fact"
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.19603380]

>>19603330
>concerned with family name and inheritance of profit
Right, because the father is the one who is 100% sure of the legitimacy of his children...

[Anonymous No.19603409]

any books about how patriarchy is superior and neoliberal feminism is destroying society and will bring about the the death of western civilization?

[Anonymous No.19603410]

>>19603375
>It does follow.

Explain why change in the production goals would shift a society from matriarchal to patriarchal. Explain how Engels would be aware of this, it's a period without written history. Also explain why your theory would be less convincing than mine, the one I already stated.

Are you done acting ridicolous?

[Anonymous No.19603413]

>>19603237
Why can't I name scientists? They're important people?

Emme Noether (people still working through the implications of her research), Austen, Emily Bronte, you can't just dismiss Woolf because she's a generational great, stands next to Joyce and that's a distinction, Tsvetaeva, Kovalevskaya (math), Akhmatova, Eliot, Dickinson, Arendt, etc. I think Kristeva is up there in terms of philosophy. Also, shoot me, but de Beauvoir.

It is something to note, that as far as I'm aware of, only relatively recently have women begun to make inroads in the genre of novels in a significant way (see Tocarzcuk). I'm excited to see what reactions modern society will produce from women fully cognizant and grappling with the idea of "woman" (as Woolf implores and supports in Room of One's Own) and then "human" at this moment of history.

I'm very excited to see our generation produce a Woolf. It's a challenge, considering that we're closer than ever to equality, but a challenge I fully believe will be met.

[Anonymous No.19603416]

>>19603361
>Read a serious book
>proceeds to link a wikipedia article specificay saying that male variability percentages have no real interpretative value
I no longer need to refute you guys, you're refuting yourselves now.

[Anonymous No.19603420]

>>19603242
Speaking of the brain and its physical environment. It's a perfectly usable general analogy.

[Anonymous No.19603426]

>>19603118
Absolutely false
Engels was a retard
Now we have actual studies of actual primitive societies and we can say with absolute certainty
There has never been a matriarchy in human history

[Anonymous No.19603427]

>>19603416
>ctrl-f "interpretative"
>it only referes to a single study about variability of brain structures between the sexes

Are you done embarassing yourself? I recommend you to learn logic, so maybe try Aristotle first?

[Anonymous No.19603428]

>>19603380
I already explained how the focus of the family shifted from the matrilinearity to father-right concerned with the inheritance of profit. If you fuck up once more I'll just consider you're trolling and stop replying.

[Anonymous No.19603438]

>>19603428
>I already explained how the focus of the family shifted from the matrilinearity to father-right concerned with the inheritance of profit.

You claimed that it did, you didn't explain "how" or "why". And there's no evidence at all

[Anonymous No.19603444]

>>19603428
Name a single society where males decisions didn't dominate females
Just one

[Anonymous No.19603446]

>>19603413
>9 women in the history of humanity
lmao
>I'm excited to see what reactions modern society will produce from women fully cognizant and grappling with the idea of "woman" (as Woolf implores and supports in Room of One's Own) and then "human" at this moment of history.
you're brainwashed
>I'm very excited to see our generation produce a Woolf.
it won't. maybe a japanese or korean woman. but those societies are patriarchal!
>It's a challenge, considering that we're closer than ever to equality, but a challenge I fully believe will be met.
holy shit, please tell me you're joking

[Anonymous No.19603456]

>>19603413
>I'm excited to see what reactions modern society will produce from women fully cognizant and grappling with the idea of "woman"
>the concept of manspreading is invented

[Anonymous No.19603461]

>>19603410
>Explain why change in the production goals would shift a society from matriarchal to patriarchal.
The production of profit created a need to inherit it from one generation to the next, prompting a reorganisation of the family which before that was only concerned with bloodline. The new organisation was patriarchal because males were working in the fields with the highest profit that needed to be inherited, metallurgy for example.
>Explain how Engels would be aware of this, it's a period without written history.
Oral traditions
>Also explain why your theory would be less convincing than mine, the one I already stated.
The theory I support is based on historical data, yours is just a collection of mysoginistic prejudices.

[Anonymous No.19603462]

>>19603428
>I already explained how the focus of the family shifted from the matrilinearity to father-right concerned with the inheritance of profit
what does that have to do with women's rights/gender equality? absolutely nothing. the men in those societies were the ones who hunted and gathered and went to war with other tribes. it wasn't patriarchal, sure, but that doesn't refute spinoza's point, that nowhere were women in power and kept men from doing what they were capable of, as is our current situation, a very sick, nihilistic, and unnatural one. you're an idiot for distorting engels in defense of neoliberal feminism.

[Anonymous No.19603464]

>>19603413
this post is sad

[Anonymous No.19603467]

>>19603201
Actually, yes, that is a rich tradition. Song, dance, narrative myth, and recreational substances are the key ingredients of culture. The fact that they’re not in your preferred language, shape, or form says nothing about their value.

[Anonymous No.19603469]

>>19603118
>>19603169
>>19603187
If matriarchal societies only exist in primitive contexts, and their patriarchal counterparts are able to advance much farther technologically and conquer. That just goes to show that in the expertises of maintaining and advancing civilization, women are wholly outcompeted by men.

[Anonymous No.19603471]

>>19603427
>not a single mention of any interpetative value to statistics
>it means it fully supports my retarded opinions!
I accept your concession too.

[Anonymous No.19603475]

>>19603461
>evoking historical materialism whilst remaining blind to his own historical context
>distorting engels in defense of neoliberalism
>making pointless, irrelevant arguments
>being this genuinely ignorant

[Anonymous No.19603480]

>>19603462
It was absolutely patriarchal
We've actually studied these so called matrilineal societies in depth since and we've found that patriarchy and hierarchy is even more brutally enforced in these than in later societies since it's the actual criteria by which people were told apart
>>19603469
There is no such thing as primitive matriarchy and matrilineality does not tell us anything about political power once we actually look into such societies and how they function
>>19603461
>Oral traditions
Lmao
Oral traditions never record anything older than 20 years with any degree of accuracy

[Anonymous No.19603482]

>>19603475
>no arguments
At least you're a honest retard.

[Anonymous No.19603483]

>>19603467
right, and that's why they lived in huts, had no electricity, vehicles, etc. and were fucking aboriginal hunter-gatherers. oh, but matriarchal societies and "gender equality" isn't regressive at all! it's not like we're turning back into a bunch of goddamned savages!

[Anonymous No.19603485]

>>19603461
>The theory I support is based on historical data
>oral traditions

What makes you think this is believable evidence? It's just oral traditions. Some Native American oral traditions claim the natives originated in America and didn't migrate from Asia. Are you mentally challenged? Engels was a charlatan

>The production of profit created a need to inherit it from one generation to the next, prompting a reorganisation of the family which before that was only concerned with bloodline. The new organisation was patriarchal because males were working in the fields with the highest profit that needed to be inherited, metallurgy for example.

This is just fanfiction, do you realize that?

[Anonymous No.19603488]

>>19603480
>Oral traditions never record anything older than 20 years with any degree of accuracy
Poltards confirmed to not having even elementary school education.

[Anonymous No.19603489]

>>19603461
any anthropological book refutes this retardation, holy shit. potlatch practices happened in patriarchal societies.

[Anonymous No.19603491]

>>19603480
>It was absolutely patriarchal
>We've actually studied these so called matrilineal societies in depth since and we've found that patriarchy and hierarchy is even more brutally enforced in these than in later societies since it's the actual criteria by which people were told apart
damn, so that fucking idiot has literally no point, but they're too bigoted and ignorant in their "moral" self-righteousness and irrelevant "leftist" rhetoric to see that. pathetic

[Anonymous No.19603496]

>>19603428
>>19603461
lmao all this leftoid cope to deny the fact that women can't compete with men on equal footing. Why else do you think every advanced society is patriarchal and only literal mud hut tribes are the other way around? "I-i-it's because only men can profit and expand their bloodline's influence bro". Sounds like the same fucking conclusion to me with different reasoning

[Anonymous No.19603498]

>>19603471
>not a single mention of any interpetative value to statistics

What the hell are you talking about? Males have greater variability in several traits. That's it.

[Anonymous No.19603499]

>>19603467
you just forgot the sacrificial culture of theirs, their brutal rituals, etc.

[Anonymous No.19603501]

>>19603485
>This is just fanfiction,
If that's the best you can do, I am genuinely sorry for you.
>>19603489
>potlatch practices happened in patriarchal societies.
This proves nothing, but keep trying.

[Anonymous No.19603507]

>>19603488
Read Geertz you subhuman rat
>Grug is split into five tribes descendant from five warriors
>Grug tells account to anthropologist
>Natural disaster destroys tribe
>Anthropologist returns two decades later
>Grug is split into four tribes descendant from four warriors
>Fifth warrior? Fifth tribe? Grug never heard of them
There has never been a faithfully preserved oral tradition
>>19603491
Read Chris Hallpike's work on primitive societies
It's fascinating how much progress we've actually made as human beings since then and how much of a meme the noble savage and all like ideas are

[Anonymous No.19603508]

>>19603501
>If that's the best you can do, I am genuinely sorry for you.

If that's the best Engels could do I am genuinely sorry for him and the people who take him seriously

[Anonymous No.19603518]

>>19603496
Nobody talks about "muh mood hut tribes" except for you retards. As for why patriarchal societies evolved, that's because of the production of profit, which prompted the transition to patriarchy in the first place. No back to middle school with you.

[Anonymous No.19603519]

>>19603501
this proves that there is no correlation between profit based society and patriarchy, most of societies in history were not modern materialistic societies you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.19603523]

>>19603507
>Chris Hallpike
which books of his do you recommend? thanks for the recommendation.
>It's fascinating how much progress we've actually made as human beings since then and how much of a meme the noble savage and all like ideas are
word

i've read that engels book anon is distorting in a stupid way, and i started to read the savage mind by claude levi-strauss once but it bored me

[Anonymous No.19603524]

>>19603498
>Males have greater variability in several traits.
Yeah, so?

[Anonymous No.19603526]

>>19603519
why argue with these people? reality refutes them. ironic that "materialists" should live in such fanciful ideology though.

[Anonymous No.19603528]

>>19603518
>As for why patriarchal societies evolved, that's because of the production of profit, which prompted the transition to patriarchy in the first place.
>source: some fairy tales

[Anonymous No.19603533]

>>19603496
>Why else do you think every advanced society is patriarchal and only literal mud hut tribes are the other way around?
based

[Anonymous No.19603535]

>>19603446
Hey, at least I'm not a person whose primary cope for not doing anything of any significance or worth is self-identifying with Nietzsche and thinking I'm more worthy than Woolf or Morisson or Tocarzcuk or even Zadie Smith because I have a penis

[Anonymous No.19603536]

>>19603524
Glad we agree then, I am not claiming anything else

[Anonymous No.19603540]

>>19602806
Is this Spinoza?

[Anonymous No.19603552]

>>19603456

>>society gets a little more conceptually complicated
>>an entire generation of men become incels

[Anonymous No.19603554]

>>19603523
Hallpike needs a clarification that he maybe likes Piaget too much
If you just want responses to arguments liek the one the other is making
Ship of Fools
It's more about how much Hallpike dislikes contemporary evolutionary psychology but there are essays on this too
His book on the Konso is cool if you're into anthropology but
Foundations of Primitive Thought was his best imo

[Anonymous No.19603555]

>>19603535
>self-identifying with Nietzsche
>quoting is self-identifying
i don't identify with nietzsche you idiot
> thinking I'm more worthy than Woolf or Morisson or Tocarzcuk or even Zadie Smith because I have a penis
holy shit, fuck off with your bullshit rhetoric. who are you doing it for? who's giving you brownie points? why do you cling to such ignorant and bigoted "moral" self-righteousness out of the delusional belief in "progress"? and you have a penis too, you fucking hypocrite.
can you even grasp how stupid you are?

[Anonymous No.19603565]

>>19603524
>>Males have greater variability in several traits.
>Yeah, so?
It means that men produce the vast majority of genius and creativity since we have more individuality. Women are overwhelmingly mediocre which is why they don't produce shit in comparison to us. The reason matriarchal societies were all outcompeted into oblivion is that they couldn't advance out of the Stone Age fast enough. Men simply have a far greater density of exceptional individuals, with high competence and a strong drive to grow. This is also why men are the top performers in every. single. field. Even nowadays

[Anonymous No.19603570]

>>19603552
>society gets a little more conceptually complicated
>menstrual blood art is invented

[Anonymous No.19603579]

>>19602832
Spotted the post modernist tranny, savage with resentment ready to passive aggressively smirk in the face of any given reality that is inconsistent with their tranny fables and insist that a universal human nature is absurd

[Anonymous No.19603580]

>>19603554
>Ship of Fools
thanks, this sounds really interesting and i will definitely read it, perhaps this week.
>It's more about how much Hallpike dislikes contemporary evolutionary psychology
interesting
>Foundations of Primitive Thought
if i like ship of fools i'll check that one out too, thanks again

[Anonymous No.19603607]

engels btfo'd

[Anonymous No.19603624]

>>19603507
>Read Chris Hallpike's work on primitive societies
> how much of a meme the noble savage and all like ideas are
Could you explain a bit more? I think this is so an essential fact that people either choose to ignore or distort and end up giving birth to thousands idiotic ideas and ideologies

[Anonymous No.19603638]

>>19603555
No brownie points. I'm on the side of great art. I'm always going to act to maximize the chance of consuming/engaging with great art. Biases minimize that chance. Devaluing women's past contributions and their possibility to achieve minimizes the possible breadth of my aesthetic pleasure and intellectual expansion. I don't understand any man who is not demanding excellence from women. In fact, I don't understand any person who doesn't demand excellence from everyone, while being value-neutral about their ability to attain/produce it.

For the record, I don't think what I'm saying is that radical. My favorite writers are what I'd expect from anyone immersed in literary tradition and several national canons. Nab is peak, Tolstoy is peak, Joyce is peak, Beckett is peak, etc. But rather than seeing that and saying men are on top, I see that as four utterly unique individuals, whose creative genius I wouldn't attribute with anything so mundane as gender. These are writers who have risen above their identity, as identity is constructed by social institutions.

Does that make sense? I find the comparison of men and women writers useless, because the vast majority of men and women writers are shit. It's deeply stupid to put 99.9999999999999999% men writers anywhere close to the literary heights achieved by even Austen, who I like, but don't consider god-tier.

[Anonymous No.19603646]

>>19603570

Yeah, but I'd rather my social deviants be self-negating irrelevant assholes, rather than a growing threat to the public.

[Anonymous No.19603663]

>>19603607
holy shit that's a def must read

[Anonymous No.19603697]

>>19603607
Kek, what's the name of the book?

[Anonymous No.19603704]

>>19603638
yeah i see what you're saying, but i have never in my life encountered a work of great art made by a woman. the main appeal of woman's art is merely the feminine mystique. unconsciously you just want to fuck the woman. "art" is enough of a goddamn mating display these days anyway.
>I don't understand any man who is not demanding excellence from women
we've accepted that they're incapable of excellence
>In fact, I don't understand any person who doesn't demand excellence from everyone, while being value-neutral about their ability to attain/produce it.
prepare to be disappointed, angry and embittered, lad
>These are writers who have risen above their identity, as identity is constructed by social institutions.
yet you really think gender politics and identity politics will produce great works of art?
>Does that make sense?
yes
>Austen
i don't like austen. i don't like henry james either.

[Anonymous No.19603713]

>>19603697
>>19603580

[Anonymous No.19604474]

>>19603704
>>19603704

Okay, I understand where your view is coming form now, even though I don't agree.

And that's alright, re not having "encountered a work of great art made by a woman," as long as that doesn't become a prescriptive view. I know I have, but how anyone feels about any piece of art is deeply personal.

As long as you are open to Great Art, regardless of who produces it, that's totally fine. I disagree about the "main appeal" bit, but I'm not sure how open you are to changing/being challenged on that. I also like and appreciate your thoughts on Austen by couching it in terms of disliking James. I interpret that as your simply disliking the genre of "society novel." Obvious, but just to state it, I would have had a problem if you liked James and disliked Austen. So there's some common ground in how we approach literature.

As for the gender and identity politics stuff--I mean, there are plenty of women who reject art as pedagogy or political tract. Very few recent works of literary fiction written by women have even a notion of that aim. Even the most progressive writers (see Garth Greenwell's recent and beautiful article on this, which I'll link at bottom; Greenwell is gay fyi) rank aesthetics > politics. It's why leftist literary people still champion writers who aren't amenable to progressive ideals, like Mary Karr and Karan Mahajan's recent defense of Philip Roth.

I mean, I'm 24. I've had these views in some form since I was 12. I'm very happy in life and with my life. And I'm proud of how much support and yet also motivation I give to my family, friends, and acquaintances. I don't get angry at people (men or women), because I view them as having full agency. Meaning, if they want to do what they want to do, that has nothing to do with me; I'll give a college try at debating them and moving them towards my conception of "good," but I'm just gonna leave if I don't like where it's going.

here's the article: https://harpers.org/archive/2020/11/making-meaning-garth-greenwell/

[Anonymous No.19605167]

>>19603638
>99.9999999999999999
Numbers, how do they work?!

[Anonymous No.19606323]

>>19603420
So general that it's useless because it is precisely the intricate differences between individual human brains and the effects these differences have on behavior and mental processes that is important.

[Anonymous No.19606342]

>>19603142
He's saying that in 99.99% of societies men always rule and lead society and if women were by nature equal to men, then women will rule and lead more, but that isn't the case.

[Anonymous No.19606867]

>>19603446
>9 women in the history of humanity
Were you expecting him to name three million women in his post?

[Anonymous No.19606926]

>>19602825
The what?

[Anonymous No.19607075]

>>19603638
3/4 based. and very well put.
art is man's expression of beauty, truth, and thus his closest communion with God. and men taking accomplishment for the achievements of better men because we all have a cock is 'we wuz kangz' tier.
I do think identity is important though. The act of reading doesn't happen in a vacuum, I mean the actual physical act of picking up a book, the first thing you see is the title and the second is the authors name. The author is indelible to the work as wood is to the tree from which its hewn.
Identity is constructed in relation to social institutions, but that doesn't make identity arbitrary because social institutions evolved along with us. for instance can Kafka (and by extension his work) exist without that dehumanizing maze of central European bureaucracy? Can Tolstoy exist without the Russian peasant and their connection to the land? Can Joyce exist without farting whores in Dublin?
I view the great writers, the truly great ones, as those who are fully themselves who have their voice that is only their own. They haven't rejected their identity, but fully realized it.

And now to women. I suspect the supposed lack of great Women writers has little to do with capability but instead social standing. The genesis of art is suffering; and the nature of the sexes opens avenues for women that, when met with certain types of suffering, offer reprieve. Men would take those same paths too if we could, but we cant so suffering for art is a more reasonable thing, somehow.
That's not to say Woman don't experience suffering of course. But i think they find support that alleviates suffering-- or perhaps that support finds them.
And they do love the aesthetic of being a writer of course (which is why so many of them write genre fiction). And for that i pity them most. I know some female authors, contemporaries who produce drivel. True unadulterated garbage. But no one tells them their work is bad. why? I don't know. a cynic would say because everyone wants to fuck them. Maybe there's a climate among publishers where saying anything even remotely damaging to the female ego is the death of a career. Or maybe its as simple as some deep seated tingle were it feels just very wrong to see a woman hurting.
So these lady authors I know, though nice people all of them, keep producing more of the same shit and don't improve and it doesn't sell particularly well and they stagnate.

[Anonymous No.19607092]

>>19602806
Reminder that Spinoza's own people disowned him.

[Anonymous No.19607136]

>>19602806
It's obviously true. Women were kept out of power, and with good reason. It's been about 100 years since women gained the right to vote, and in that time they've already managed to irrevocably ruin the entire west and the western world will probably collapse (or change to such a degree as to make a collapse preferable) entirely in less than a hundred years more

[Anonymous No.19607153]

>>19603118
>male centric societies are successful and female centric ones are not
Great refutation dude

[Anonymous No.19607161]

What is meant by "equality" changes drastically across time.

In one sense there is a very profound equality between the sexes. Both are made of the same flesh, hence both will soon be eaten by worms.

All this business about matriarchies is stupid nonsense and everyone worth a damn has known it all along. Let the storm pass and stay inside.

[Anonymous No.19607214]

>>19602806
a lot of power comes from man's ability to sublimate his sexual drive, women's drive is mostly mute except for the presentation of daddy's credit card

[Anonymous No.19607228]

>>19607214
Oh sweetie. Poor, poor sweetie. You mistake the harlot's mask for a maiden's face. They carry nature in their blood as well as you, and writhe and creep for the pleasure of bending in men's beds To know it is to be a man and no longer a boy.

[Anonymous No.19607234]

>>19602806
What this guy was not clued on about is that the modern concept of women, as delicate and dainty quasi ethereal beauties or as angelic princesses was created by men millennia ago

[Anonymous No.19607248]

>>19602806
>ME BIGGER AND STRONGER THEREFORE ME BETTER
Why is it always sickly aristocratic fuckboi looking twinks who exalt in muh might is muh right horseshit?

[Anonymous No.19607257]

>>19607248
Notice how there is no mention of physical size in Spinoza's argument.

>aristocratic

He was the son of merchant

[Anonymous No.19607269]

>>19607257
>human power and therefore human right

[Anonymous No.19607280]

>>19607269
I am pretty sure he means that force of character and abilities are human power

[Anonymous No.19607284]

>>19607257
Yes, but he was of a noble Jewish lineage

[Anonymous No.19607327]

>>19607248
>>ME BIGGER AND STRONGER THEREFORE ME BETTER
that's how women think about men, anon. any man who thinks like that is a woman, not a man. or a chimpanzee.
>Why is it always sickly aristocratic fuckboi looking twinks who exalt in muh might is muh right horseshit?
oh you're a gay hypocrite, nevermind

[Anonymous No.19607334]

>>19607280
this
the only reason you >>19607248 think like a chimpanzee and are so stupid, judgemental, shallow and gay is because of the gay, feminist, gender equality society you were raised in. you have devolved to a level lower than any animal. were you raised by a single mother, by any chance? that would explain your homosexuality.
this is precisely why women shouldn't have rights, their bastard sons turn out to be degenerate faggots who are lower than animals

[Anonymous No.19607344]

>>19602806
Sweden, 2021.
The question is: how long will it last? We simply do not know.

[Anonymous No.19607363]

>>19607344
>being weak and pathetic is good!
>getting fucked up the ass is good!
>men are bad!
>women are good!
are there any books that exam the ridiculous and insanely warped "morality" behind this?

[Anonymous No.19607368]

>>19607363
the bible

[Anonymous No.19607371]

Read "Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies" by Margaret Mead

[Anonymous No.19607373]

>>19607368
in the sense of examining it as "evil" or in the sense of proclaiming it as "good"?

[Anonymous No.19607374]

>>19607371
>Read "Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies" by Margaret Mead
ok

[Anonymous No.19607382]

>>19607344
Swede here, it will probably last, it's just that Sweden will be Sweden in name only after about 50-100 years more of this. You'll have a nation of black muslims calling themselves Swedes, and they'll claim that it was always like this.

[Anonymous No.19607386]

>>19602806
if you got off your computer screen for once, you would realize the present world refutes that, imbecile.

[Anonymous No.19607394]

>>19607386
In what way? Women whine and complain about inequalities daily

[Anonymous No.19607414]

>>19607327
>>19607257
Well that's the problem isn't it? Schmolonoza's argument presupposes the world in which power is seized through some vague, ephemeral means of 'spirit' and 'virtue' and 'talent', when it reality, at least for the vast majority of human history, positions of power and authority, of any kind - politicsk, cultural or so such, were asserted by simple biology. Men are physically stronger, so they crown themselves as the rulers of the world, and explain this crude tyranny as their 'natural' 'superiority'. Only when civilization reaches the point of reviling brute conquest and defending all it's members equally, can women begin to establish their influence upon society by means other than allures of sex. Which is what has been happening for the past century.

[Anonymous No.19607416]

>>19607414
t. has never read spinoza

[Anonymous No.19607715]

>>19607414
>when it reality, at least for the vast majority of human history, positions of power and authority, of any kind - politicsk, cultural or so such, were asserted by simple biology.
Even in Chimpanzee cultures leaders are often times weaker but lead because of their social prowess

[Anonymous No.19607764]

>>19603118
based, you can tell from the chud seethe (you)ing you

[Anonymous No.19607774]

>>19607764
Anon, read the thread. Engels was a retard.

[Anonymous No.19607835]

>>19607414
>this crude tyranny

It's how most human societies work. I don't feel particularly negative about it.

>Only when civilization reaches the point of reviling brute conquest and defending all it's members equally, can women begin to establish their influence upon society by means other than allures of sex

And that society is punished by women themselves, refusing to procreate and voting for the immigration of sub 90 IQ human groups

[Anonymous No.19609198]

>>19607136
I just had this epiphany yesterday... I look around at what the US has become in just the last 30 years and it is sheer chaos exponential with no counter order in sight. And the cause to me seems to be the women and their sympathies for the deviants.0j8v8

[Anonymous No.19609206]

>>19607234
Perhaps for good reason... Perhaps it was an ideal and a sort of mind control to get women to buy into so as to subvert their true nature.

[Anonymous No.19609287]

>>19603168
>level of civilization
lol

[Anonymous No.19609312]

>>19603638
>In fact, I don't understand any person who doesn't demand excellence from everyone, while being value-neutral about their ability to attain/produce it.
I have watched many a teacher quit after <5 years in public school because they held onto this

[Anonymous No.19609527]

>>19603413
This is one of the most pathetic posts I've seen on this board in a while, thanks for the laugh anon

[Anonymous No.19609556]

>>19603118
Curious what do you do?

[Anonymous No.19609597]

>>19602806
So all I have to do is show that there is a case where women rule their society either alongside or above men and this whole argument falls apart? Ok. Here’s six.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

[Anonymous No.19609601]

>>19603118
>refuted by Engels
lol

[Anonymous No.19609619]

>>19603461
None of this is actually true, dude. Patriarchal societies pre-date the profit motive by something like 3,000 years of recorded human history.

[Anonymous No.19609632]

>>19603518
>They think the idea of profiteering was something that was invented partway through human history
This is something that has been around since the birth of trade - the birth of any human being interacting with any other human being, even. The idea of profit - trade in order to ensure access to materials that are more valuable/less accessable in the area in which you live, so that you and your kin group can have more than would be produced if you only focused on domestic production, thus profiteering through trade - is as old as humanity itself. We did not change at some predetermined date and suddenly invent profit motive and patriarchy, you dumb mouthbreathing troglodyte. Human society has had profit motive and patriarchy since the earliest recorded civilizations, and it has never changed from that paradigm outside of small outlier societies.

For the love of God, man, we actually have primitive societies like the Sengalese to study from now. They're all patriarchal, intensely violent and xenophobic.

[Anonymous No.19609644]

>>19603638
Devaluing the efforts and accomplishments of men when men have provided most of the effort and all of the accomplishment in favor of pro-woman bias is minimizing the impact of art and advancement on humanity, in fact.

If you have any bias, it should be in favor of historical fact. People aren't equal. Men and women aren't equal. There are greaters and lessers. These are facts.

No amount of relative reasoning is going to change the fact that some people should be given more attention in any contemporary reading of history - namely, the people who accomplished the most.

[Anonymous No.19609718]

>>19603646
When you make every woman into a whore, that's what you get.

[Anonymous No.19611097]

>>19602806
Spinoza was unironically an incel

[Anonymous No.19611109]

>>19611097
he was a volcel. stop projecting. you've never even read spinoza.

[Anonymous No.19611124]

>>19611109
>he was a volcel
Cope

[Anonymous No.19611174]

>>19611124
either you've never read spinoza or you don't understand him at all. but either way you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.19611212]

>>19607371
Is this the pro polyamory lady? Is the behavior of savages supposed to help her position?

[Anonymous No.19611684]

>>19603426
Anyone who has studied The iroquois knows that it wasn't even an actual matriarchy.

[Anonymous No.19612104]

>>19603260
Material circumstances have improved though. That seems to be what that anon was getting at.

[Anonymous No.19612145]

>>19609312
Good schools suck and never bring out the best in people.

[Anonymous No.19613294]

>>19603118
based

[Anonymous No.19613324]

>>19602806
Men are not "equal" to men either. No one is "equal".

[Anonymous No.19613337]

>>19611109
>>19611174
he wasn't a volcel, there is an account of his being in love with a 13 year old girl, daughter of some acquaintance of his, who, of course, did not requite.

>>19611097
yes, and?

[Anonymous No.19614530]

>>19603242
If you're going to say that then that's also true to every single individual. Even two males can't be considered equal.

[Anonymous No.19614623]

>>19603311
>Only Mayans, Aztecs, etc had a written language, and none of them were a matriarchy.
proof?

[Anonymous No.19616046]

>>19613324
All men are created equal