/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2475072]

Why are good female writers so rare ? Why can't females into philosophy ? Why do female film directors make such inane chickflicks ? Looking for serious answers here.

[Anonymous No.2475095]

Good female writers aren't rare at all. There are less of them than there are good male writers, but by no means are they really rare.

It's the same as it is for writers in general - there's a lot of shit, and some occasional gems. They become much easier to find once you've become more well-read.

[Anonymous No.2475107]

>>2475095
Can you give me some names please? Maybe I haven't tried hard enough. The only good female writers I can think of are De Beauvoir, Yourcenar and Charlotte Brontë. Also, do you know of any philosophers ? (inb4 Ayn Rand, she gives women a bad name)

[Anonymous No.2475119]

>>2475107
If you'll open the picture in my post, it's the recommendations chart for some good female writers. Yourcenar and Beauvoire are on there, but Austen and the Bronte sisters and some other obvious ones were left out. If you want me to rec any specifically, tell me some of your general favorites.

I'm personally not much for philosophy, so I can't name any.

[Anonymous No.2475124]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_philosophers
enjoy

[Anonymous No.2475125]

At birth, men and women have the same intellectual potential; there is no primary difference in intelligence between the sexes. It is also a fact that potential left to stagnate will atrophy. Women do not use their mental capacity: they deliberately let it disintegrate. After a few years of sporadic training, they revert to a state of irreversible mental torpor.

Why do women not make use of their intellectual potential? For the simple reason that they do not need to. It is not essential for their survival. Theoretically it is possible for a beautiful woman to have less intelligence than a chimpanzee and still be considered an acceptable member of society.

By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given moments. The minute a woman has made this decision she ceases to develop her mind. She may, of course, go on to obtain various degrees and diplomas. These increase her market value in the eyes of men, for men believe that a woman who can recite things by heart must also know and understand them. But any real possibility of communication between the sexes ceases at this point. Their paths are divided forever.

[Anonymous No.2475127]

"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. ...

[Anonymous No.2475129]

>>2475127
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."

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

[Anonymous No.2475130]

>>2475125

Sure is over-simplification of gender relations wrapped in purple prose in here.

[Anonymous No.2475131]

>>2475130
Look how purple this misogynist's prose is:

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.

[Anonymous No.2475134]

>>2475130
>radical feminist tries to shame women who rely on their looks to get by
>MISOGYNISTIC HATE SPEECH AND PURPLE PROSE

it's not even purple bro wtf

[Anonymous No.2475135]

>>2475125
>there is no primary difference in intelligence between the sexes

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.2475138]

>entry-level art house
>no love in the afternoon or even Eric Rohmer in general

Is /tv/ even trying?

[Anonymous No.2475137]

>>2475130
how the fuck do you purple text???
i only know how to red and green

[Anonymous No.2475143]

>>2475138
>/tv/
da fuq

[Anonymous No.2475147]

>>2475138
>Eric Rohmer
>Entry level

I SHIGGY DIGGY

[Anonymous No.2475149]

>>2475107
hey anon
is there an 'advanced' art house pic?

[Anonymous No.2475161]

>>2475143
I was making reference to the OP image.

>>2475147
I have no idea if shiggy diggy is a positive or a negative connotation.

Have some soko in a bathtub.

>>2475149
District 13 will be on that list for sure.

[Anonymous No.2475163]

>>2475149
/tv/ would never admit any film is advanced arthouse. It will constantly make fun of your tastes and call you plebeian.

[Anonymous No.2475164]

>>2475134

I didn't say it was misogynistic hate speech. I said it was an over-simplification of gender relations. And I guess we have different definitions of purp.

[Anonymous No.2475188]

>>2475149
There is not. The guy who made the 2 charts said he wouldn't make an advanced chart because of the shitstorm that would result in a list filled with Stan Brakhage and Jonas Mekas.

[Anonymous No.2475206]

>>2475163
>>2475188
Haha well fair enough I guess.

[Richard Feynmann !Hwop/gspA. No.2475210]

shoutout to op and his fedora

[Anonymous No.2475220]

>>2475210
i want to post this on r9k to rouse masculists to feel indignant about how women cow them into submission and obedience with the argumentum ad baculum but i don't think they'll be smart enough to get it

[Anonymous No.2475218]

Historically, men and women had very different social roles. In the 19th century, you could teach a girl to play piano all you wanted, but in the end she'd still be expected to marry and have children. Until very recently, women were never takes seriously as writers/composers/artists and whatever else, even the few that were educated.

Of course most of the great artists/philosophers/writers were men, it couldn't have been different. Claiming it was women's fault because they weren't interested is not only stupid, but also highly misoginistic, since you're treating women like they were all the same (i.e. they all just want to use their looks to catch a men and never have to work).

[Anonymous No.2475235]

>>2475218
>different expectations = different results
True!

>this accounts entirely for women never achieving anything whatsoever even when they had ample opportunity and incitement to do so
False, and does not follow. See the above example of impoverished niggers on the bottom rung of society still managing to create while their creations were shit on by whites.

>claiming it was women's fault is stupid and misogynistic
>ie. "positing men might not be responsible for a shortcoming of women, based on data and observation, is inherently bad and you are a hatemonger if you do it"
I don't need to demonstrate the 2 (3?) fallacies you used here, I hope.

>since you're treating women like they were all the same
>ie. "generalizations of groups of people based on the attributes that define those groups (eg. psychology, biology, neurology) are impossible"
Again, I hope I don't have to complete the reductio here.

>they all just want to..
Strawman. One observation of tendency, made from valid data, does not equal "all women everywhere are bad."