[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 643 KB, 542x800, 1319480206708.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2255808 No.2255808 [Reply] [Original]

Are male better writers than women, on average?
Considering the top tier male authors vs top tier female authors.

Just wondering what women are comparable to Shakespeare, Goethe, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Joyce, Proust, etc....

They've been liberated for quite some time now...you'd think there would be a female Shakespeare at least...go figure

>> No.2255810

>>2255808

I literally can't name 1 top tier female author comparable to any of those men.

I do like Atwood and Shelley. But I wouldn't call them top tier at all.

>> No.2255814

wizened old men in 18 year old 4channers bodies find a million different ways to say they havent read anything newer than 1950: the thread

>> No.2255815

The explanation is, of course, that all the male authors you mentioned wrote before this so-called liberation of women. In the period of liberated females, there are no male writers equal to those you've mentioned either.

>> No.2255817

>>2255815

how does that excuse them from not writing of that caliber post 1950s?

>> No.2255818

You might consider how your critical opinion of these male writers was influenced by was has largely been a male critic-driven academia and canon. Ever heard of the Irish poet Mary Tighe? Probably not, but she crafted a poem in 1805 called Psyche, or the Legend of Love, which focused on the folktale of Cupid and Psyche. It might sound familiar. Years later, in 1819, John Keats penned his famous Ode to Psyche, which was astonishingly similar to Tighe's poem. Yet Keats is forever immortalized and Tighe, marginalized. I'm not saying that it was because she was a woman, but it is likely.

I would put Shelley, Morrison, and Woolf up there. In terms of non-fiction, Wollstoncraft definitely and Friedan maybe.

>> No.2255820

>>2255817

don't be so old before you're actually old

look at these wrinkly opinions your'e spouting... you might as well be scheduling regular colonoscopies and drinking metamucil and watching afternoon marathons of matlock because you're posting with the mind of an 80 year old man

>> No.2255821

>>2255817
Did anyone after 1950 write as well as any of those names mentioned? I can tell you in 100-200 years.

>> No.2255822

>>2255817
Maybe they are and you just don't know about them

>> No.2255823

>>2255818
>You might consider how your critical opinion of these male writers was influenced by was has largely been a male critic-driven academia and canon

No because I dont listen to canon or read 'critiques' or care about critics or academia. I just read books and see how they flow with me.

Ive read female authors and I do enjoy their work. But they can't be compared to their better male counter-parts.

>> No.2255825

>>2255808

98% of female authors are terrible
1% are good
1% are very good
0% are great
0% are timeless classics.

So far. Who knows what the future will hold.

>> No.2255828

So who is the best living female writer? Alice Munro? Anne Carson?

>> No.2255829

Shelley is comparable with the best of them. Woolf. If you want someone old and important, Scheherazade.

>> No.2255831

>>2255829
>shelley comparable

LMFAO

no. Just go away.

>> No.2255833

>implying Ayn Rand is not superior to all of them

>> No.2255836

>>2255817
>post 1950s
poorer education and lower standards

>> No.2255839

>>2255823
Sexual discrimination permeates the opinion of those who don't follow academia or the canon. Some of the comments here prove that. To be honest, the authors you mentioned are allegedly great partly because many scholars and critics believe them to be great and consider them worthy of critical attention and preservation. That attention, nor the tools to garner such attention, was not available to women for centuries. That is why there is a supposed discrepancy between great men writers and great women writers.

>> No.2255850

>>2255839
I also think this is the case.

>> No.2255855

Harold Bloom is an admirer of the Tale of Genji and favorably compares it to Proust

>> No.2255864

>>2255839

maybe you should reflect on how gender studies and "critics" have influenced your view of literature

male writers dominate because of the quality of their work
just like male scientists dominate because of the quality of their work

society is dominated by men because of the quality of their work

society is biased towards men because of the quality of manliness...

so saying X is male biased or male influenced is pretty trivial...implying there is a better alternative

>> No.2255867

>>2255864

isn't it absurd that men are also the best chefs?

women can't even get their kitchen work right :(

>> No.2255868

>>2255864

just look at this cranky bediapered nursing home shit

go yell at the tv. go accuse one of the nurses of hiding your polident. go tell those neighbor kids to keep off your damn lawn -- do literally anything other than gumming up /lit/ with your depressing dry husks of posts

>> No.2255872

>>2255868

truth is depressing? just stating pretty obvious facts

>> No.2255875

>>2255872

i mean i feel depressed on your behalf because i can just taste how much people must dislike you from your ugly posting.

>> No.2255876

>>2255864
Yes, but why are men's work of a higher quality? Simply because they are men? Yeah, I disagree.

>> No.2255878

>>2255875
>ugly posting

What is ugly about it.

Women are adorable and men are admirable.

>> No.2255881

>>2255876
>simply because they are men?

oh of course not. some men write worse than women.

but to be a great, timeless author, it seems like it is a necessary pre-req to be a man, although not sufficient, you need talent as well.

>> No.2255941

>>2255808
All great writers have a penis. That doesn't mean all great writers are men though. Toni Morrison showed me her penis at a book signing. It was about as thick as my forearm.

>> No.2255950

>>2255808

yes men are better at writing.

the only thing women are better at is bitching and whoring.

/thread

>> No.2255952

>Are male better writers than women, on average?
No. They're the same. There's new XX century female Shakespeare because there is not XX century Shakespeare in general, male or female. There wasn't a XVIIth century Shakespeare because Europe in those days was a quite horrible place for, yeah, whole genders, nationalities and even races.

>> No.2255957

what a fucking retarded question

>> No.2255958

>Are male better writers than women, on average?

the top 2 selling authors this decade were J K Rowling and Stephanie Meyer
so obviously yes

>> No.2255963

Men has since dawn of time competed to get the best females, it is this attribute, that makes us perform better than most females in any field.

Females go on about being liberated. I mean, welcome, you are coming in to the most competitive field in all of mankind.

Half of the time you are bitching about the sportsreferences or how they talk shit about you or they try degrade you, does it ever go you through your head that guys do exactly the same with each other just to get ahead?

Do you know how many mens lives are ruined since the first day of school because of this competitiveness?

No one ever looks on those with sympathetic eyes. They are just pathetic loosers.

So, if you want to perform, you better get with the times and play the game

>> No.2255966

>>2255828
Can't we jsut turn this into a female authors recommendation thread? For example, what are everyone's thoughts on the writers mentioned in this post?

>> No.2255967

>female authors

Hahaha, come on now, let's at least try to keep this board serious.

>> No.2255978

>>2255825

>0% are great
>0% are timeless classics.

Sappho and Dickinson are in the gold rank.

Emily Bronte, Woolf, Austen are silver rank IMO.

>> No.2255982

>>2255978
And evertyone listed in the OP is PLATINUM.. Your point?

>> No.2255984

>>2255982
Disxagree with that actually.

The only platinum artists in the OP were Shakespeare and Cervantes.

Woolf > Joyce

Dickinson > Goethe

>> No.2255985

>>2255984
That is imo a very weird opinion that I don't agree with at all

>> No.2255987

>you'd think there would be a female Shakespeare at least

No. Female literary genius wouldn't manifest in the same way.

>> No.2255992

>>2255987
Do you also feel this way about the other arts? What about medicine? What about.. carpentry?

>> No.2255993

>ctrl+f Sappho
>only one mention

:<

>> No.2255996

>>2255985

I have quite a romantic aesthetic. Art for me is about spirit and the heights it can take the spirit to.

There are lines in Dickinson that soar more than anything in Ulyssess.

Goethe, Joyce, Tolstoy Proust - I find these writers engage in lengthy intellectual willy waving. They try too hard. An attempt to overcompensate for an absence of spirit - which is congenital and most unfair of the world really - to give someone the heightest artistic talent and ambition but not also the instinct that'll lubricate evrything into running smoothly. Which isn't to say they are not great, just not the greatest.

>> No.2255998

>>2255992
>Do you also feel this way about the other arts? What about medicine? What about.. carpentry?

I think women are capable of great literature. It is different to great make literature - and the vhances for it to come about are much slimmer, not because of sexist oppression (that's something for failed women artists to bitch about) but because of how womena re set up.

I don't think women could reach the peaks in: science, maths, music, chess.

They are handicapped in painting and sculpture too.

But words are OK for women - they are good at chatting and are often vain and self-obsessed enough for literature

>> No.2256000

for all intents and purposes, the average woman is equal to the average man -- or, at least, the difference is so negligible that they should be treated with equality anyway -- but it's been proven by _science_ that women are incapable of reaching the creative and intellectual heights that the very top echelon of men can.

incidentally, my favourite female writer is woolf. quite like ursula k le guin, too. don't like morrison, austen, bronte, atwood, dickinson, and others mentioned in this thread.

>> No.2256003

Maybe men and women are so inherently dispositionally different that we'll just never be able to fully appreciate each other's art. So one side isn't necessarily better or worse, their appeal is just largely limited to their own gender and thus male and female writer should be judged and regarded on separate terms.

>> No.2256007
File: 55 KB, 522x338, Screen shot 2011-12-15 at 10.15.52 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Ayn Rand's pretty good.

>> No.2256019

>>2255996

This is a load of malarkey. Proust isn't anywhere close to being an "intellectual willy-waver" whatever the fuck that is. You're clearly just upset that their writing is sometimes a bit complicated and/or obscure. It's not due to any absence of whatever bullshit you call "spirit", but in addition to it

>> No.2256021

>>2255998
What makes you think they're more handicapped in all of those areas than they are in writing? Are you saying that masters in all of those other fields aren't as vain and self-obsessed?

Also you completely missed my point, but whatever

>> No.2256023

ewwww girls have cooties.

>> No.2256026

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

"Creativity may be another example of gender difference in motivation rather than ability. The evidence presents a seeming paradox, because the tests of creativity generally show men and women scoring about the same, yet through history some men have been much more creative than women. An explanation that fits this pattern is that men and women have the same creative ability but different motivations.

I am a musician, and have long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently - essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don't feel driven to do it...

>> No.2256027

>>2256026
I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don't think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I'm saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women."

>> No.2256030

>>2256026
>>2256027
"Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry. "

"Would any link be missing from the whole chain of science and art, if woman, if woman's work, were excluded from it? Let us acknowledge the exception - it proves the rule - that woman is capable of perfection in everything which does not constitute a work: in letters, in memoirs, in the most intricate handiwork - in short, everything which is not a craft; and precisely because in the things mentioned woman perfects herself, because in them she obeys the only artistic impulse in her nature, which is to captivate."

>> No.2256031

>>2256030
Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,- from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

>> No.2256032

>>2255864
>just like male scientists dominate because of the quality of their work
Stopped reading there. 0/10 shitty troll would not read again.

>> No.2256033

>>2256031
>>2256030
>>2256027
>>2256026
You really don't have to repost all of this shit, you know. We can read the site ourselves if we want tog

>> No.2256037

>>2256033
The first two posts are a quote from the link, to generate interest and make you click it. The full quote is really needed for context, and it's a good quote, but it is too big for one post sadly.

The other quotes are Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Darwin on the subject of the OP.

>> No.2256042

>>2256019

I am not upset in the slightest. You sound like you've had a nerve touched though, or are you always so crass in your expression?

I enjoy Proust, Joyce etc. They are great artists. They lack something though. That is the reason they fall back on complication and intellectualisation in their art. They are trying to hide something.

>Proust isn't anywhere close to being an "intellectual willy-waver"

Yes, that term is certainly more applicable to Joyce. However, ROTP is *about* the discovery of an aesthetic. If Proust truly had the force that search would be superfluous because the goal would already be their in his spiritual DNA. ROTP is at times fun or englightening, often boring, always circuitous, and very definitely an intellecual and only semi-artistic piece of work.

>> No.2256044

>>2256021

>Also you completely missed my point, but whatever

You'll need to make it clearer.

>> No.2256046

>>2256021

>Are you saying that masters in all of those other fields aren't as vain and self-obsessed

Not necessarily - certainly not in maths, chess, science. They are obsessed, but not necessarily with themselves. Literature, on the other hand, I think requires self-obsession.

>> No.2256047

suzanne collins is a genious

>> No.2256052

ITT: teenage boys trying to articulate their inherent superiority to the thing they fear most - women

>> No.2256058

>>2256021

>What makes you think they're more handicapped in all of those areas than they are in writing?

I don't know, that is just how it appears to be AFAICT.

>> No.2256065

>>2256052
ITT a correlation between sandy vaginas, butthurt, and logical fallacies

>> No.2256067

>>2256052
so you admit they are inherently superior?

>> No.2256082

(Disclaimer: I only come on /lit/ when i'm drunk and unhappy so comments are fated to be incoherent and laden with vitriol.)

Virginia Woolf, Katherine Mansfield and Janet Frame are all pretty fucking great. I'd call them top-tier.

Also I enjoy reading Donna Tart and whoever wrote the 'angus, thongs and full frontal snogging' series way more than I enjoyed reading dull-as-ditchwater Tolstoy and moronic Joyce and I bet you would too so fuck you.

>> No.2256084

>>2255996
>I have quite a romantic aesthetic. Art for me is about spirit and the heights it can take the spirit to.
>hating on Goethe

You haven't read Goethe. I don't care what you say, I don't care if you can prove to me that you say for hours holding his work with your eyes moving across the pages. You have not read Goethe.

As for female greats: Dickinson, Woolf, Stein, Moore, O'Connor, Wollstonecraft.

As for why there isn't as many:
-access to education
-domestic womanly lives not very exciting
-not as exciting for a woman to enter a male canon
-even today, women can get by in life pretty easy, no struggle = no drive
-can create babies, why create books?
-differences of lives could account for different writing tendencies (women like Dorothy Wordsworth, or even Dickinson, seem to be generally interested in much smaller scopes)

>> No.2256091

>>2256084

>You haven't read Goethe.

Not in german.

I accused him of intellectual willy waving.

Do you not think the mountain and walpurgus night and the bargain are a story illustrating exactly what I'm getting at?

Strike a bargain for knowledge to compensate.

Why was Goethe drawn to this story?

He needed help to get up the mountain.

Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Blake, Dickinson, Kafka - born moutaineers.

>> No.2256093

>implying many of the best selling authors of all time aren't women
>implying Agatha Christie hasn't sold as well as Shakespeare

>> No.2256094

>>2256093
typical female, can only think in terms of money

>> No.2256099

>>2256084

>domestic womanly lives not very exciting

An exciting life isn't a pre-requisite for writing great literature.

>even today, women can get by in life pretty easy, no struggle = no drive

The lack of drive seems genetic.

>can create babies, why create books?

This is a main point.

>differences of lives could account for different writing tendencies (women like Dorothy Wordsworth, or even Dickinson, seem to be generally interested in much smaller scopes)

That's a problem for readers, not writers. Dickinson, for example, is only small in scope superficially.

>> No.2256101

>>2256099

>sociology circa 1957

>> No.2256102
File: 18 KB, 278x300, george-soros-fund-management.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256102

>>2256094
U jelly?

>> No.2256107

>>2256091

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think you give Goethe enough credit, conceptually. Also, they way you defined yourself, aesthetically and such, is the main reason I took issue with your stance on Goethe.

And even though Blake is my favorite poet, he doesn't seem to fit in with the rest there. He was gay for Milton, for starters.

>> No.2256108
File: 35 KB, 517x373, 1293229070046[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256108

>>2256093
Oh God, yes. Stephenie Meyer and J.K. Rowling, the glorious heroines of female writing.

>> No.2256109

>>2256101

If I threw a stone out of the window presumably you'd go

>physics circa 1687

when it hit the ground

>> No.2256110

>>2256099
>An exciting life isn't a pre-requisite for writing great literature.

It certainly helps. Byron wouldn't have been nearly as great if he led Tao Lin's life.

>> No.2256115

>>2256109

no, you're just throwing a stone out of a window not claiming to know why it falls to the ground

>> No.2256117

>>2256107

>I don't think you give Goethe enough credit

In all probability. I've only read translations of Faust.

>> No.2256121

>>2256117

That's not so important, I wasn't thinking in terms of style.

>> No.2256122

>>2256108
>All time best selling
>Meyer
Is she at even 100M yet? Danielle Steele is the best selling living author, having sold way more than either Rowling or Meyer. Christie is on another level sales wise to any of them.

>> No.2256123

>>2256110
Yeah, and Proust's work wouldn't have been any good had he spent most of his time in bed or something.

>> No.2256124
File: 24 KB, 393x296, 1314344103523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256124

>I enjoy reading Donna Tart and whoever wrote the 'angus, thongs and full frontal snogging' series way more than I enjoyed reading dull-as-ditchwater Tolstoy and moronic Joyce and I bet you would too so fuck you.

>> No.2256241
File: 1.41 MB, 2300x4000, femaleauthors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256241

I'll just drop this here.

>> No.2256244

>>2256241
I'll just drop this here.

Fuck, 4chan won't let me upload maleauthors.jpg, it says it's several thousand times the image size limit?

>> No.2256248

>>2256244
Do you think the Russian literature charts and the Novellas charts try to include every great author or book under those categories ever? Keeping it around 100 or so is feasible for a recommendations chart.

If you wanted comprehensive lists, just go to the Wikipedia lists for male and female authors.

>> No.2256259

>>2256124
BUT TOLSTOY'S NOT BORING

>> No.2256268

>>2256248
YEAH BUT FOR THE FEMALE CHARTS THEY WERE SCRAPING TO GET WHAT THEY GOT

>> No.2256272

>>2256268
No, I could pretty easily name off another 100 female authors. The trouble is finding them in in-print English translations. It seems like people think including authors from across the world instead of just Americans and Brits constitutes scraping the barrel.

>> No.2256277

>>2256259

YES HE IS

>> No.2256291

>>2256277
NO YOU ARE

>> No.2256295

>>2256291

NO U

>> No.2256301

>>2256291

Tolstoy is so boring I've never even started one of his books.

>> No.2256308

>>2255818
It's almost as if they were drawing from the same source. Perhaps even a story held in common, some sort of, I don't know, folktale, with fixed plot and characterization.

Well, that's just speculation. Now we know that Keats was just a plagiarist, and we can dismiss him, since his only esteemed poem was stolen from an innocent woman - indeed, is there any other kind of woman?

>> No.2256311

>>2256301
FUCK YOU

>> No.2256322

>>2256272
>>The trouble is finding them in in-print English translations.
Well, that's surely a sign of male oppression. Despite the fact that the handful of good women authors, like Charlotte Bronte and such, /do/ stay in print.

But whatever. I'm sure there's a female Shakespeare somewhere who only wrote in Eskimo language on toilet paper and was tragically dismissed by the Patriarchy - go dig her up and sing her praises.

>> No.2256327

>>2256311

NO U, CUNT

>> No.2256332

>>2256322

>female Shakespeare

that would be Aphra Behn

>> No.2256342

>>2256322
Um, I didn't say anything about "male oppression" in my post. There are tons and tons of male authors whose work is out of print as well, and many who have never been translated at all. That's more a problem of the English language book market not caring about the rest of world's literature than any sort of male oppression.

The Brontes are public domain now, so there's no chance of them ever being out of print. And yes, there may be a contemporary Shakespeare, male of female, out there somewhere that isn't writing in English and has yet to be translated.

I've heard Brazil's Joao Guimaraes Rosa untranslatable prose compared to Joyce's often, and yet very few people on /lit/ know about him. I don't see it as a stretch that there may be a "Shakespeare" writing right now and /lit/ just hasn't heard of them.

>> No.2256345

>>2256342

>and /lit/ just hasn't heard of them.

The number of things that /lit/ hasn't heard of is so massive that it is basically easier to consider what they have heard of.

Which is not much.

>> No.2256347

>>2256342
This is true, Guimarães Rosa is untranslatable because he uses regional expressions and "wrong" grammar constructions that can't be found in other languages.

>> No.2256353

What the hell is "a Shakespeare"? Besides William. Are you people even familiar with contemporary drama, or are you trying to compare novel writers and avant-garde poets to Shakespeare's plays?

>> No.2256354

>>2256342

There are plenty of authors who ARE in print, who ARE well-regarded, and who /lit/ has still never heard of because they're not anglophone, not dead, and not on the reading lists of a US high school.

When was the last time you saw a Carlos Fuentes thread on /lit/, and yet he's arguably one of the most important living writers.

>> No.2256355

>>2256353

I think is was being used as a shorthand for "great author".

Seems simple to me. Are you retarded?

>> No.2256358

>>2256353
I think at this point it's just become synonymous with "very amazing writer."

>> No.2256365

>>2256355
>>2256358

But then how are we defining "great writer"? From a writer standpoint (which is really what this thread is about, not the reader), do you think being a great playwright is comparable to being a great short story writer?

>> No.2256381

>>2256365
>>2256365

>a great playwright is comparable to being a great short story writer?

Yes.

A great writer is a great writer regardless of form, and generally they express themselves in the form most prevalent in the period.

Shakespeare wrote plays because they paid the bills, and gave his writing the widest audience. A modern shakespeare would probably be a novelist.

>> No.2256395

>>2256381
>A modern shakespeare would probably be a screenwriter.

fixed.

>> No.2256403
File: 39 KB, 548x442, Sex Differences in IQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256403

Femanon here.

I think that there are a few female writers who could be classified as fantastic writers, even geniuses. Top tier female writers have existed, certainly. But there aren't very many at all.

There are obviously far more male writers who were truly geniuses of the art. And, in my opinion, the best writers have been, and most likely always will be, male.

This can probably be explained by the fact that females are much more likely to be of average or slightly above average intelligence. Males have higher numbers at the very bottom and the very top of the intelligence spectrum. They're more likely to be geniuses (or mentally retarded).

>> No.2256406

>>2256403
>men are more likely to be mentally retarded
>her own chart clearly states that women are more likely to be mentally retarded

You need to learn how to read graphs, sister.

>> No.2256407

>>2256403
Motivation is another factor, as was referenced in a link/quote earlier in the thread. Ability might even be about the same, but there are very few female scientists, even accounting for that (eg. "per capita" for the rate of female geniuses, and even generously allowing for HURR WOMEN ARE DISCOURAGED).

>> No.2256413

>>2256406
Yeah, whoops. Scratch the mentally retarded part. I do remember reading that somewhere, but the chart doesn't show it. But, yeah. Men are more likely to be geniuses.

>>2256407
That can still be seen today. Compared to males, there aren't very many women majoring in the hard sciences. I wonder why.


I expect that there will be a more instances of the female genius than before, now that women have more opportunities than in the last couple of centuries. The vast majority of the greatest writers of the 21st century will probably still be male, though.

>> No.2256414

anne carson's pretty good
mina loy's pretty good
virginia woolf is ok

are any of them as good as shakespeare, joyce, proust, pound etc.?

not really

the closest women get to that kind of stature is with writers like Djuna Barnes and Gertrude Stein

and Sappho...

come to think of it has there ever been a good STRAIGHT female writer?

>> No.2256415

>>2256413
>Men are more likely to be geniuses.

durr thats cause we live in a male dominated world thats cause men get better treatment duhrrr hurrr thats cause the word "genius" is male biased and defined in a way to benefit men not women hurrrrrrrrr im do gender studies because i fail at everything else

in a female fair world "genius" wouldn't mean anything because we would judge people by the quality of their emotions!!!!!!! hurrrrrrrrrr im a feminist

>> No.2256417

>>2256414

Has there ever been any good STRAIGHT male writers?

>> No.2256419

Female genius exists. It is just outnumbered. Some of this is cultural, some of this is biological. It's hard to unravel the two conditions because we've so tightly wound the two together over the last few millennia.

None of this ultimately matters, this parcelling out and division of genius. We are all in this together. We are one human race trying to make something more happen out here on this aimlessly drifting rock hurling around the sun.

I prefer to read male writers because they are much easier to relate to intellectually and emotionally.

>> No.2256420

>>2256417

yeah

all those one's that never had someone else's dick in their ass

or their dick in some other guy's ass

just don't ask me for examples

>> No.2256421
File: 24 KB, 320x400, carlton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256421

>>2256414

Bronte is great.

It's partly evolutionary, a big part of writing is about wit and charisma. Studies show that a man's ability to make others laugh is very sexually attractive. Women never needed to be clever with their speech because their physical beauty alone was enough to attract a partner.

This is why female comedians are all bull dykes.

>> No.2256423
File: 99 KB, 720x540, 1318396233114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256423

>>2256421

>> No.2256424
File: 28 KB, 397x298, 1305913119814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256424

>>2256415
Relax. Calm down. I was just stating a fact. I'm not whining about the higher rates of male genius. I'm not trying to find excuses or reasons why this is. I'm not quibbling on and on about how disadvantaged women are. So how did you come to the conclusion that I'm a bleeding-heart feminazi that's majoring in Gender Studies?

>> No.2256426

>>2256406
>men are more likely to be mentally retarded
>her own chart clearly states that women are more likely to be mentally retarded
I think that, in itself, proves who's more likely to be mentally retarded.

>> No.2256429

>>2256426
Wow, that was witty and observant! Please, tell me more!

>> No.2256431

>>2256424

you're right, he's just trolling. male intellect is far more polarised than female intellect, this is well known.

>> No.2256445
File: 124 KB, 1219x722, science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256445

i'm just stating a fact guys

>> No.2256450
File: 393 KB, 1536x1024, Nepalese-woman-with-baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256450

Want me to explain the discrepancies? Sexism, child rearing, and evolution. Same reason mothers are almost always closer to their children than fathers: it's how we evolved. Men would get the food, and women would care over the children. Men aren't necessarily smarter, we just have different biological imperatives.

>> No.2256452
File: 28 KB, 399x400, 1318489287019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256452

>>2256445
>Wait don't go whats your favourite dorito flavour

>> No.2256457

>>2256445
How dare you tarnish RF's name with religion? Bro was an atheist.

>> No.2256459

http://wellmanneredfrivolity.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-50-most-translated-authors.html

Everyone in this thread
Status: MEGATOLD

>> No.2256462
File: 9 KB, 260x260, shajkes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2256462

>>2256395

Screenwriters don't get as much money and bling and bitches as bestselling novelists, so he'd be a novelist who wrote screenplays for big money or just sold the options for even bigger money. Also he'd produce lines of novels that were along the lines of "WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S TUDOR CYCLE", then underneath there'd be some other cunt who wrote it whose name would be in tiny letters, rainbow sixing around the bottom of the cover.

Basically, Shakespeare would be up to his ruff in chang and bitches, and then he'd produce something of the quality of the Sonnets seemingly out of his arse for absolutely no reason. Then he'd fuck posh spice right in the arse, and fly to the moon in a converted Ford Transit and open the first space casino after fighting some kind of cheese-themed monster for dominance of the planet.

Possibly anyway. I'm shockingly high at the moment, and I can't remember what I just wrote.

>> No.2256465

>>2256457

tarnish is corrosion

corrosion is decay

decay makes a thing less than whole

faith is wholeness -- faith is not tarnish

QED

>> No.2256474

>>2256413
I sometimes wonder if the major factor isn't what de Beauvoir said, that women are still "the Other," they're still commodities and fetish objects to the "Same," the men who run society and define the collective unconscious' view of women.

I mean when you look at stuff like this
http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html
it just seems so obvious. It has been conjectured (privately, where one won't risk their tenure) that women were repressed and stifled prior to their liberation, but also coddled and condescended to, and only the former behaviour has been forcibly erased and demonized, ie. treating the symptom and not the cause. The cause ostensibly being that female hypergamy and their role as sexual selectors causes the "doers," the actual cultural force of the zeitgeist, men, to stereotype them in a fashion similar to any other manifestation of the Other, like Orientalism. Are women basically conscious commodities?

>Could it be that the world is not being ruled by experts but by beings who are not fit for anything else - by women?

>> No.2256483

>>2256465
pooping is the detoxification of the body

detoxification is cleanliness

cleanliness is close to Godliness

God equals pooping

>> No.2256485

>>2256474

>Are women basically conscious commodities?

No they are unconscious.

>> No.2256488

>>2256483

of course -- He wants us to be happy and a satisfying poop is one of the most pure unalloyed pleasures known to man (cf roma, richard, "glengarry glen ross")

>> No.2256491

>>2256474

>implying everyone isn't a commodity now, conscious or unconscious

"The pesonal isn't just political anymore, it's economic through and through."

>> No.2256525

>in a female fair world "genius" wouldn't mean anything because we would judge people by the quality of their emotions!!!!!!! hurrrrrrrrrr im a feminist


this is what feminists actually believe

>> No.2256528

>>2256525

pretty great transparent strawman argument your superior male brain has whipped up here

(best course of action would probably be to leave /lit/ until you've refined your critical thinking skills a lil bit)

>> No.2256533

if by better you mean 'has a male style' then yes

>> No.2256597

>>2255814
I like this post.

>> No.2256637

>>2256528

a feminist used this argument in this thread

refer to this golden nugget:
>>2255818
>>2255818

>> No.2256654

>>2256525
lol, yeah
In my hometown, there are courses like "computer for women", only for women (discrimination, anyone?), with no firm goals, the description was just all about "having a good time, with absolutely no pressure, respecting each other, no judgement" etc.
Hope they don't get angry when the computer doesn't respect their inputs and gives them error messages. But they probably spend most of their time away from the devices - just talking and stuff - anyway.

>> No.2256697

Great literature is the art of the lie, the beautiful falsehood playing as truth. Men have always been better liars.

>> No.2256698

>>2256637

"you didn't like my strawman so heres a lazy tu quoque"

time to put on your big boy posting pants

devitr BOOKS

>> No.2256714

>>2256698

except its not a strawman when someone actually uses the argument as i stated it except instead of "genius" they used "quality of writing"

etc

bafoon,

>> No.2256734

>>2256714

even if we ingore for a sec that the post you referenced says nothing even approximating your rubbish we'd still have to broach the astonishing mouthbreathing idiocy of believing that feminism is a monolithic bloc that contains no divergence of opinion

you're just direly out of your depth here, kid, maybe try /v/ or /a/?

>> No.2256794

>>2256734

trolled out of ten

>> No.2257284

>>2256597
so do i