[ 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: 44 KB, 500x264, babby_bench.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173319 No.3173319[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why are there no good female science fiction wirters?

>> No.3173327

Because for the most part women arent interesting or creative.

>> No.3173333

>female
>good writers

>> No.3173332

Le Guin?

>> No.3173336

Women write about what women are generally interested in, like romance novels. They aren't typically into sci-fi, so they don't write about it.

>> No.3173339

>>3173327
>>3173333
>>3173319

Am I back on /b/? I had pretty high hopes for this board for a little while.

Can all of you tell me which female authors you've read and why you found them less worthy than their male counterparts?

>> No.3173360

>>3173339

I can't even recall the last time I read a book written by a woman.

>> No.3173362

>>3173339

Barbera Hamby (sic?) is okay, and she was married to a cool dude

The chick who wrote the handmaid's tale was good.

>> No.3173365

>>3173339
Flannery O'Connor is just about the only female writer Ive read that I liked. And it isnt from female writers Ive come to my conclusion that women arent interesting or creative.

>> No.3173371

>>3173319

>Implying there are good male science fiction writers

>Implying science fiction is literature

>> No.3173375

>>3173371
>implying implications
>2012

>> No.3173384

>>3173360

Why are you talking about female authors if you don't read them?

>>3173365

Which female authors have you read and tell me why you found them less worthy than their male counterparts?

Where did you come to this conclusion? Blind assumption, or personal anecdotes? Do you have something you can cite?

>> No.3173391

>>3173319
Aren't there? Connie Willis? Sheila Finch? Elizabeth Moon? The younger Ursula LeGuin (before she started to choke on her own social agenda)? Kate Wilhelm? Joan D. Vinge? Vonda McIntyre? Lois Bujold? Don't some of these women measure up?

>> No.3173410

>>3173384
Virginia Woolf
Maya Angelou
Alice Walker
Jane Austen
And I cant even remember the names of some of the shit I was forced to read in high school and literature. Hell, even some of the feminist shit I read when IO was going through a gay ass faze was awful. I just read it because I was trying to get laid and "understand" women.

>> No.3173412

>>3173410
Oops, and college, not literature.

>> No.3173416
File: 305 KB, 350x338, spidey_fuck_it.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173416

>>3173336

>implying that science-fiction and romance are not synonymous.
>literature board

>> No.3173419

>>3173410

Four authors? And you think you can judge the body of work produced by females as a whole? SERIOUSLY? Do you readily assume this much with regard to all your opinions? Are the four terrible transgendered Pakistani authors who write romantic furry fiction an example of how fucked fiction as a whole is? Think harder, man.

>> No.3173435

>>3173419
>the four terrible transgendered Pakistani authors who write romantic furry fiction

What?

>> No.3173438

>>3173435

Why not take four fiction authors you've read and disliked and decide all fiction isn't worth it?

>> No.3173440

>>3173416

Science fiction can very well be literature. Do you not consider Brave New World and 1984 to be sci-fi?

And take a look in any supermarket book aisle. I guarantee 60-70% of the books there will have been written by women, and the vast majority of those will be schlocky romance novels.

>> No.3173443

>>3173440

What do supermarket aisles have to do with the state of literature at large? I'm beginning to suspect you're not serious.

>> No.3173446

>>3173384
>Why are you talking about female authors if you don't read them?

I don't read them because they hardly write anything that peaks my interest. Most of the stuff I see written by women strikes me as very trashy.

>> No.3173451

>>3173446

>peaks my interest

Seriously? Making this mistake?

>I don't read them

Okay. Why?

>they hardly write anything

How would you know?

>Most of the stuff I see written by women strikes me as very trashy.

As opposed to men, who mostly write gold? How old are you?

>> No.3173455

>>3173446
>I don't read them because they hardly write anything that peaks my interest.
How do you know if you don't read them. And it's piques your interest, not peaks, for future reference.

>> No.3173473

>>3173319
There are?

I'm pretty sure James Tiptree disproves the theorem "there are no good female science fiction authors" by herself, and also UKLG as people have mentioned, and Atwood, Joan Vinge, and Pat Cadigan, off the top of my head. Don't make sweeping judgments about the genre on the basis of your ignorance.

Seriously James Tiptree is really, really good

>> No.3173475

>>3173443

Well the supermarkets wouldn't be stocking them if they weren't selling. I think that's as much a gauge of what's popular in literature as anything. Like it or not, (and I don't) even porn novels for old ladies are still literature.

>> No.3173482

>>3173419
Those are just the four that come to mind. i deal with women on a daily basis, they arent interesting, creative or funny.

>> No.3173489

>>3173475

If we're going by that line of thinking, I seriously doubt the ratio of trash to gold in the mainstream is different for male authors.

>> No.3173490

>>3173475
The supermarkets also stock Stephen King and Dan Brown.

>> No.3173495

>>3173339
Give up now. This board is as racist as /pol/ and as sexist as /fa/. That and it doesn't know shit about literature, but none of the hobby boards know anything about their respective hobbies.

>> No.3173500

>>3173451

>Seriously? Making this mistake?

What is called...subject matter?

>Okay. Why?

Because the subject matter doesn't interest and/or the reviews are shit.

>How would you know?

Because I buy books indiscriminately when it comes to the sex of the author and I've hardly ever find anything within the categories that I find to worthwhile of any interest

>As opposed to men, who mostly write gold?

When it comes to subject matter and themes I find worthwhile in regular books, the men tend to produce more gold, not to mention more material in general than the females. It's not that women can't be good writers, I've read plenty of manga and graphic novels written by women that are really good, but when it comes to just normal literature, I don't see many women writing anything that I would actually pick up.

>>3173455

>And it's piques your interest, not peaks, for future reference.

thx spill chek.

>> No.3173504

>>3173495
It's on and off, man, there'll be this shit one week and a really good thread about female writers another

I don't know, it comes in waves, can't blame you for fucking off really, this sexist shit is so dumb

>> No.3173507

>>3173495

woman detected

>> No.3173509

>>3173489

Oh of course, popular literature is always shit. Most of the stuff by male authors up there are just crime novels with plots no better than the average episode of CSI or action novels about as deep as a Jason Statham movie.

I've got nothing against women writing, but from what I've seen they've really written nothing that would capture my interest.

>> No.3173511

>>3173495

I'm starting to see what you mean.

>>3173500

Until you've read as many female authors writing in subjects you've found interesting as their male counterparts, you're effectively making a blind assumption. This is not active thinking, it's laziness.

>> No.3173512

>>3173507
please return to /r9k/, i believe it would be more suited to your posting style and interests

>> No.3173513

>>3173473
>Seriously James Tiptree is really, really good

... although whenever I've read or re-read any of James Tiptree/Alice Sheldon's work since her suicide in 1987 I can't help but think, "Yes yes but this is the work of a very disturbed person - how seriously can I take these ideas?"

>> No.3173526

>>3173511

The reason pederasty has died out is mostly because of mothers. That's one of the reasons I don't read women's literature.

You want everything to yourself. Me, me, me.

>> No.3173528

>>3173513

>this is the work of a very disturbed person - how seriously can I take these ideas?"

Good luck not taking seriously most works of art

>> No.3173530

>>3173513
Oh, absolutely, but I don't think that diminishes the quality of her work, or the excellence of her portrayal and examination and storymaking about a certain segment of human experience that she captures really really well. You know?

>> No.3173537

>>3173526

Why is that a reason not to read women's literature?

Would you read barren female authors?

>> No.3173547

>>3173528
>>>3173513
>>this is the work of a very disturbed person - how seriously can I take these ideas?"
>Good luck not taking seriously most works of art

Well ... yeah. I do in fact have that thought about many works of art.

>> No.3173560

>>3173537

Because you've corrupted a glorious patriarchy. Why would I want any more of that propoganda?

>> No.3173566

>>3173560

You realize there are female authors who support patriarchy? If you would read more you might realize this, among many other interesting facts and anecdotes about females you may not have noticed, given that most of your information about the sex very likely comes from the internet.

>> No.3173571

>>3173566

So? They're still not men, so when they support men they're just being inauthentic. Why read works about earth written by a Martian?

>> No.3173578

>>3173571

Leaving thread now. I'll admit, you got me this far.

I prefer conversation with people who think about the subject at hand.

>> No.3173588

>>3173419

What female sci-fi authors would you recommend to us then?

>> No.3173589

>>3173588
different anon but

>James Tiptree, UKLG, Atwood, Joan Vinge, and Pat Cadigan

now of course if you're one of these terribly political people you may not like these authors but if you're one of them you should fuck off

>> No.3173596

I'm not a big fan of female authors, but I did love The Dispossessed by UKLG. It was smart, well-paced, insightful, and beautifully structured.

She also wrote one of the best ghost stories I've ever read: "Crosswords." Short, unsettling, perfectly told.

I sometimes wonder why I don't find books and stories by women authors to be very interesting. I think it has something to do with sensory perception, but I'm not sure.

I read somewhere that women are much more attuned to sensory details: the stitching in a shirt, the smell of a delicately prepared meal, the cold of a metal handrail. It's not just that these feelings can evoke strong emotional associations -- it's that women seem neurologically superior to men when it comes to experiencing certain senses.

After I read this, I started noticing that women authors tend to dwell of these types of details much more often than male writers. Personally, I don't care much about tactile or auditory sensation -- unless it has a pretty clear purpose in the story.

>> No.3173597

>>3173589

Are all of the part of the same feminism with a sci-fi twist wheelhouse?

>> No.3173610

Well I don't know about sci fi but I like Sylvia Plath but I agree that people write about what interests them and honestly women just don't like sci fi or at least write it. It's not sexist. It's just how it is.

>> No.3173616
File: 24 KB, 285x400, Mr Eliot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173616

We've all read Hitchen's argument explaining why Women Aren't Funny - there was never an evolutionary need for them to become proficient at humor.

Isn't it true, likewise, that there was never an evolutionary need for them to "Master" any skill at all?

It seems men have a gene, or tendency or compunction to MASTER things they do, and other men appreciate "mastery" on an intellectual and aesthetic level.

Women never seemed to have this necessity, no?

>> No.3173619

>>3173596

Hate to add to such a long post, but --

One of the amazing things I noticed about Tolstoy is that he seemed to intuit this difference between men and women.

Go back and read Anna Karenina. Scenes with Anna and other women are decidedly more sensory-heavy (for lack of a better word) than those with men.

The best example of this is early on, when Anna presses her pen-knife to the train window, then touches the cold blade to her cheek.

Later, in the hay-making scene with Levin and the male peasants, there is some beautiful sensory work -- but most of the passage has to do with abstract concepts: fraternity among workers, the satisfactions of hard work, equality, etc.

>> No.3173628

>>3173589
Anne McCaffrey

>> No.3173633

>>3173616

arguably, women appreciate mastery more than men. a girl i know once said she finds herself sexually attracted to men who "can do one thing remarkably well." it didn't matter too much to her WHAT that thing was -- just that they showed a very high level of proficiency.

this makes sense on a larger scale: women compete with other women to gain the attention of men who show impressive skills.

men look for skills in women, too -- but it's less important than other factors, just as looks are less important for women.

>> No.3173654

>>3173633


ya women appreciate skills in their mates, and men seek to acquire them and thus we a male culture or ideology that encourages mastery and expertise

but men don't care about skills in their mates, the woman could be a waitress, or a doctor, it doesn't really matter much to guys

but women literally get turned on by power men, men with skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills, etc...


if you look at erotic fiction, the male protagonist is usually a guy in power--the whole twilight phenomena is an example of this

edward is a hundred years old, he's a powerful and 'dangerous' immortal vampire, is an exceptional musician, has two medical degrees...etc etc

and this fantasy appeals to 15 year old girls and 45year old women

>> No.3173672

Woman are just not as interested in science fiction.

>> No.3173691
File: 54 KB, 400x411, LeGuinGoogle-thumb-400x411-32843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3173691

>>3173332
>>3173332
>>3173332
I see you

>> No.3173693

>>3173672
Stop making comments about shit you don't know.

>> No.3173696

Linda Nagata, Julie(a?) Czerneda, off the top of my head.

>> No.3173702

You guys completely fucked up the perfect opportunity to make the first reply "Because there are no good science fiction writers." Good job, this board is a fucking worthless piece of shit, I'm leaving and never coming back.

>> No.3173705

>>3173693
You don't need to know anything about it, The lack of science fiction is clear. Woman might like reading science fiction but there's no interest in expanding on it and writing about it.

>> No.3173721

>>3173705
seriously, if you don't know about something, don't make a comment about it

how hard is this

>> No.3173736

>>3173702

You're here forever, no matter how long you leave.

We'll see you soon.

>> No.3173841

>>3173702
Let not the door hit thee in the ass on thy way out.

>> No.3173863

>>3173702
You sound like Renton quitting smack.

>> No.3173882

>>3173702
I hate when people threaten to leave 4chan because it makes me sad to realize that they're just going to come back and shitpost tomorrow. I wish you really would leave. Please.

>> No.3173965

>>3173882
>>3173882
How would you know if he did or didn't?

>> No.3173989

>>3173319
>Why are there no good females?
FTFY

>> No.3173996

>>3173495

This fucking shithole is at least 2/3 comprised of edgy /lit/ster teens and tao lin sockpuppets. I know liberals like to play the victim but if you really want to see the difference just browse /pol/ for about an hour.

>> No.3174001
File: 124 KB, 742x621, 1351647817907.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174001

>>3173721

bro you need to check your privilege

>>3173705

don't worry the privilege checking police will get to him soon enough

>> No.3174004

>>3173996
I didn't think my opinions could offend people either, until that fateful day I formed an opinion that inadvertently offended myself.

On that very day I converted into a Jewish Hipster Muslim Jesus and preached the gospel divinely inspired onto the back of a Special K box.

Germinated wheat byproduct; color additives 127, 654.234b; asorbic potassium glutamate transvestite!

>> No.3174005

>>3173319
Margaret Atwood is the only decent one I've read.

>> No.3174018

>>3173578
>questions thread
>bitches about opinions
>be a faggot
>not help the thread at all by giving their own thoughts on women sci-fi writers
>actually thinks women have any decent works of fiction, but doesn't back it up, but asks others to back up their opinons


I think I was in another thread where he did the exact same thing, but didn't contribute to anything, and just chose one post and bitched about it for the entire thread.

But seriously, has anyone ever read Zombie by Joyce Carol Oates?

>> No.3174027
File: 17 KB, 300x300, 51PwZZP-GfL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-64,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174027

Female writers 'tend' (and all these comments are at best retarded averages) tend to focus more on character motivations and and the way they interact. And to put it kindly: Science fiction as a genre as rarely been bothered about realistic characters. Those space ships drives that effortlessly zip around the galaxy are way more realistic than the people flying in them. There are exceptions of course but...

>> No.3174031

>>3173410
>maya angelou
>good

son, put the brakes on this thread. let me tell you how hard I laughed. I literally put down my banana and had a good hard laugh for a full five minutes. I can't even begin to comprehend how retarded you'd have to be to say something like that, I mean, is this donkey's dick serious? son you are first rate retarded, I'm still laughing at you as I type this, imagining you sucking my dick for being such a stupid baby. I can't even believe you're still alive, do you realize maya angelou is a black woman? let me get this straight, you read her shit and thought, "this is good"? oh god, stop it, don't tell me you did that, anything but that, I'll accept anything.

I'm dying here. somebody inject me with morphine. you are a dumb son of a bitch. may you rot in hell.

>> No.3174034

>>3174031

What of Maya Angelou's have you read? I don't see any criticism of her in your post. Not him, btw

>> No.3174035
File: 47 KB, 453x604, fags.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174035

>>3174031
He's just saying that those are the women he's read, and also didn't like, bozo.

>> No.3174048

>>3174035

lel

>> No.3174050

>>3174048
get out of here /sp/ faggot
>do you even read faggot
>I bet you're some jaundiced chinaman.

>> No.3174056
File: 10 KB, 250x223, laughinggirls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174056

>>3174050

Lel my middle name is Standing Deer. I love Ernest Hemingway. Let me instagram a picture of all my books so everyone can see. Or I can be just like my brother and underline and instagram a passage from every book I read. Look how intelligent I am.

>> No.3174063
File: 53 KB, 720x960, logans hot ass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174063

>>3174056
>implying I've only read A Farewell to Arms XD

>> No.3174086
File: 659 KB, 281x220, 1348850446343.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174086

> LeGuin’s work is not only gorgeously written, but it’s always socially and ecologically conscious — for instance, she typically writes characters of color, shrugging, “most people in the world aren’t white. Why in the future would we assume they are?” Indeed. But maybe even more importantly, as LeGuin has stated, ”These are human stories. I’m using the other worlds and the other races as metaphors. All I know how to write about are people and animals — and trees. Still, nothing that is alien.”

Because even most of the greatest female authors are barely scratching the surface of male authors in depth or complexity, be it in characters or plots or settings or whatever the fuck you want to talk about. I don't think anyone is going to argue that, up until recent decades, life was very different for men and women. Most female authors didn't have the education or lifestyle to fit in a prolific writing practice. It hasn't been long that man and woman have been truly integrated into the educational system (barring lingering admissions standards,) and most of the little content available to read comes from inexperienced and untrained authors. What's worse is that the persecution complex that comes from this old hierarchy causes current female authors to actually aspire to emulate those of the past, because any woman in the past "strong enough" to write a book must have been great and worthy of copy. Thus, the trend of shitty female authors is taking a long time to be obscured by the decent ones, especially in the field of sci-fi, which was and is more obviously populated by males. Until more women can come around and learn how to fucking write on their own rather than how to go off the shit we're (I think rightly) used to calling shit, the good is always going to be covered in a thick layer of trash.

>> No.3174095

Try Octavia Butler's "Bloodchild"

Great SF story.


There's "When It Changed" by Joanna Russ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_It_Changed

The reason you don't read female sci-fi is because it often comes up as feminist.

>> No.3174097

>>3174086

Whut?

Maybe if you click on the top of the screen where it says: /b

>> No.3174098

>>3174086
>implying many women will ever be into sci-fi
>implying admissions standards haven't been skewed in favour of women for at least two decades now
>implying women are incapable of being independent and must cling to others' past successes

Look at that feminism at work.

>> No.3174116

>>3174095

Here everyone, the text for "Bloodchild."

http://boblyman.net/englt392/texts/bloodchild.pdf

>> No.3174117
File: 878 KB, 300x220, 1350423223745.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174117

>>3174097
le tl;dr face amirite xD

>>3174098
>implying many women will ever be into sci-fi
Alright Seldon.
>implying admissions standards haven't been skewed in favour of women for at least two decades now
Depends on where you go. In my personal experience I've seen girls get the shaft in favor of guys. Hell, I never should have been let into my engineering program over my friend who got deferred from it.
>implying women are incapable of being independent and must cling to others' past successes
That habit is certainly too often encouraged. I say that it needs to go out of style so that potential female authors can get their shit together properly rather than be tainted by it.
>feminism
see >>3174095

>> No.3174138

>>3174117

Not sure if you're right or not, you're just writing totally incoherently in a vaguely mad way.

Can't wait for the 'Socialist healthcare murdering white babies in world literature' thread.

>> No.3174140

>>3174117

Hey, >>3174095 and >>3174116 here.

I didn't mean to imply that that feminism = bad, but rather that people read the stories, go "Oh it's just feminist" or even worse think that just by writing about women or feminine concepts = "feminism" and it gets tossed to the wayside. I linked the story because I think it's absolutely /amazing/. It's creepy, disturbing, violent and gory but it portrays the idea of pregnancy in a way that I feel was very revealing to me.

>> No.3174142

>>3174116
>“Bloodchild” is my pregnant man story. I’ve always wanted to
explore what it might be like for a man to be put into that most unlikely of all
positions. Could I write a story in which a man chose to become pregnant not
through some sort of misplaced competitiveness to prove that a man could do
anything a woman could do, not because he was forced to, not even out of
curiosity?

Feminist shit.

>> No.3174144

>>3174138
>you're just writing totally incoherently in a vaguely mad way
>i don't want to read a post that requires me to think
Are you the one who pointed me to /b/?

>> No.3174148

>>3174142

Your loss. It's a great story.

>> No.3174149

>>3174117
>Alright Seldon.
Sheldon?

>In my personal experience I've seen girls get the shaft in favor of guys.
Anecdote in place of data. That makes sense. If you actually look at the data, you'll see that women are favoured. And in the arts, they account for more than 60% of admissions.

>I say that it needs to go out of style so that potential female authors can get their shit together properly rather than be tainted by it.
Right. So it's not the fault of women, it's the fault of the institution. Let me find my rolleyes.gif

>see >>3174095
I'll check those out.

>> No.3174152

>>3174148
It's been done and it is called The Passion of New Eve by Angela Carter.

>> No.3174157

>>3174152

Oh my goodness it's like you're just throwing stories where a guy gets pregnant to try and "counter" me. Try this. Read the story. It won't take you very long.

I'm very happy this author did a similar concept but it honestly has nothing to do with the quality of a different work.

>> No.3174159

>>3174149
>not recognizing seldon in that context
how
>anecdote in place of data
I speak for myself. If you trust the data at face value it's no better than anecdote. Maybe they're favored these days, that doesn't much change anything surrounding my ideas about past standards causing the literary trash today.
>so it's not the fault of women, it's the fault of the institution
Well if we want to go into the validity of "women are stupid" claims, we can probably take that to another board. I'm saying everything based on the assumption that female sci-fi authors aren't more generally terrible because they have a vagina. I wasn't under the impression that X group of people is bad at Y because muh biology is a respected argument here.

>> No.3174166

>>3174159
I'm just pointing out the stupidity of feminist thought.

Back to the thread!

I still have no idea what that Seldon thing is.

>> No.3174168

>>3174166
Go read Foundation you idort.

>> No.3174182

women are incapable of writing anything beyond elaborate romances

>> No.3174192

Ursula K. LeGuin was already mentioned, as was Anne McCaffrey, and I think it's ridiculously stupid to dismiss either one when talking science fiction, they're weighty names in their own right, and they earned the weight.
CJ Cherryh's a good one I never see mentioned here, but she's also long-winded as fuck and her writing style is hot water you have to ease into. If you want "world-building," though, (which I personally hate, but to each their own) she's your gal.
Marion Zimmer Bradley is also pretty good.

I'd be hard-pressed to pick out more than a handful of male science fiction authors I'd qualify as good, either, though. I don't discount it as literature, but it became very derivative very quickly after the 60's and 70's sci-fi-- writers and/or publishers just stopped pushing the envelope.

>> No.3174195

I've never read an interesting woman writer/thinker/philosopher/historian/scientist.

I don't go out of my way to avoid them, it just happened naturally. They are very rare

>> No.3174199

>>3174018
I have. Zombie honestly creeped me the hell out. American Psycho's worst scenes I mostly shrugged through, but Zombie was emotionally disturbing.
I enjoy Oates, but I have the same issue with her work that I do with John Irving, her body of work is very hit-or-miss.

>> No.3174201

It's for a few reasons:

-women have always been thought to be intrinsically value to society because men want to fuck them
-an attractive woman does not need to do much do go far in this world, people will automatically attribute (according to psychology) positive traits to her such as grace, intelligence, and kindness, etc. when an equivalent level of those traits in a man would not be recognized
-an attractive woman simply does not NEED to cultivate exceptional intelligence, creativity, or interesting aspects for herself. This is why the most flawlessly beautiful woman often have the dullest souls; people have paid attention to them from an early age, letting them know everything they do is positive.

In short, they have no reason to develop personalities, let alone the creativity required to write a science fiction, or ANY novel. Obviously some ignore this but for the most part their sex follows it.
Now women will never, ever admit this and call it sexist I'm sure, even though the facts are obvious

>> No.3174204

>>3174201
>Now women will never, ever admit this and call it sexist I'm sure
I love how guys on 4chan think this is true when it was a staple of the 2nd-wave Feminism they anachronistically rail against. The entire point of bra burning and growing out armpit hair and all of that shit was a result of these points, escaping the gilded cage of beauty by defying it.
It's just bizarre to me that guys on 4chan use one of the most obvious criticisms of patriarchy as if it's against feminism.

>> No.3174207

>>3174204
but feminism's moved forward
now it's just about how men are responsible for everything

>> No.3174210

>>3174204
>bra burning, armpit hair, being ugly
But only a TINY portion of people followed this and the media has created such a high standard of beauty for women these days that all of that is incredibly irrelevant and if a woman thinks she can gain attention from her beauty (most), then she will. It's only after turning 16 and realizing men will never pay atttention to her for her looks is when any women become feminists in today's society

>> No.3174212

>>3174201
>>3174201
Whereas men know from an early age that regardless of their looks, they can capture a female's attention by making them laugh, women fixate on their beauty as everyone pays attention to the best looking girls.

>> No.3174215

>>3174204
escaping the gilded cage of beauty by defying it
Are you serious? Take a look around at the women of western society. Ya, they're really all defying it, with their lipstick, eyeshadow, eyeliner, cover up, diets, pencilled on eyebrows, low cut tops, yoga pants, flirty behaviour, etc.

>> No.3174217

>>3174207
"forward"

>> No.3174230

>>3174207
Feminism's just branched out and it's a clusterfuck like most political-theoretical discussions nowadays. This is still a cogent criticism of patriarchy and not a criticism of women: if attractive women weren't socialized to be baubles, they'd have to learn to think too, and patriarchy is why attractive women are socialized to be baubles: be pretty because men like pretty women, not smart women, and you're supposed to want men (according to familial tradition and movies and radio songs and romance novels and holy books and commercials and Disney Princess toy sets for toddlers), not something useless like a lifelong passion or a heartfelt career.
Of course this is no longer as pervasive in the social order as it was in past times, but it's still there, and the fact that it's still there is staring us in the face when we read opinions like >>3174201.

>> No.3174234

>>3174215
>Are you serious? Take a look around at the women of western society
I right there said it was a staple of 2nd-Wave Feminism, and that it was what bra burnings and growing armpit hair were about... I was talking about the 1960s and 70s. I can't do anything with what you've said but assume that either your reading comprehension is faulty, or you don't know anything about feminism. My entire post was about a bygone era, and a very small minority within that bygone era as noted by >>3174210, an anon with a real point to make.

>> No.3174236

>>3174230
a) That's not an opinion, that post is almost entirely factual.
b) Even if someone is raised without disney movies and without romance novels and bibles and all that other crap, they'd still observe in life that men want to fuck pretty women. It's utterly inexusable in my opinion that because someone appreciates your beauty that you should stop trying to develop yourself into a self actualized human being.

>> No.3174242

>>3174234
What's lulzy, you see, is that I wrote both those posts, and basically everything you've been reading for the past few minutes.

My point to make here is that you are agreeing with me that women generally aren't interesting people; as you said, they are socialized to be baubles and that is unfortunate but a very real truth. Now why can't I announce this in public without being strung up by the balls?

>> No.3174244

>>3174230
but don't you see how much of a problem that is?
instead of taking some kind of ownership of their plight, like second-wave feminists did, third- and fourth-wave feminists are simply sitting around asking for men to give them stuff
it's deplorable.
i hate women today. they're such ineffectual, whiny bitches.
give me an independent, feisty, clever woman any day. all the "feminists" can fuck off.

>> No.3174245

>>3174236
>It's utterly inexusable in my opinion that because someone appreciates your beauty
It's not about because someone appreciates their beauty, it's because they've been socialized into the concept of prettiness as its own goal, firstly, and secondly that prettiness is the goal towards stability. Men work because that's how they live. Women work to get a man because that's how they live.
Again, this is an anachronistic point to a certain extent, but you're completely denying the realities of socialization if you think people don't pick up unconscious modes of thought from society which in turn alter and/or determine behavior.

>> No.3174247

>>3174244
You're still completely ignoring what socialization is.

>> No.3174249

>>3174247
How did second-wave feminists overcome it? Contemporary women just aren't being responsible for themselves.

>> No.3174253

>>3174249
Overcome it? Are you kidding me? They were completely subsumed, they didn't overcome anything, they were defeated by money, media, and traditionalist cultural values, plain and simple.
>>3174210
>and the media has created such a high standard of beauty for women these days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wy6GTc5Vs

>> No.3174262

>>3174245
The 'realities' of socialization you speak of are absurdly overplayed. Women are simply persuaded to follow the stereotypes of femininity that society sets out, far more easily than men are persuaded by the archetypes of masculinity society sets out for them; women are simply more susceptible of caring what everyone else thinks of them. Why? Why do men develop their own personalities more frequently than undergo socialization? Who knows, maybe what you believe about socialization just isn't right

>> No.3174310
File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1281927785404.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174310

>>3174262
> far more easily than men are persuaded by the archetypes of masculinity society sets out for them
>Why do men develop their own personalities more frequently than undergo socialization?
Unverifiable, unfalsifiable horseshit. Your second question assumes it's true, when someone else could readily say men don't develop personalities, first of all, and second of all, the obvious argument is that personality IS THE RESULT OF socialization. Your argument is flawed from its foundation.

>> No.3174315

>>3174027
don't
talk
about
things
you
have
no
knowledge
of

why the fuck can /lit/ never understand that if they haven't read a decent amount of science fiction, they shouldn't talk shit about the genre, so that they don't say things that are objectively, provably, embarrassingly wrong like this guy

>> No.3174321

>>3174315

>There are exceptions of course

Rather than turn this into some bizarre 'I'm nore nerdy than you session, as if that's going to make us some sort of super humans, I'll just write: Your A level English has sadly not granted you any supernatural mind reading powers, just very probably a strange delusion that your opinion on subjective matters is ... oh wait... this will make it more meaningful:

your
opinion
is
rubbish
I
know
everything
most
sci-fi poor

Our arguments are now equally valid. Yay

>> No.3174457

>>3174086

Is the kid in Earthsea a brother? It's about 100 years since I read that book.

>> No.3174475

>>3174315
Because /lit/ is full of edgy kids who try to make up for their lack of real experiential knowledge with a strong belief in ideal-based approaches to constructing world views in order for them to contextualize and interact with a broad range of topics with which they are unfamiliar.

And they won't ever stop until their childhood hubris gets them smacked down again and again in contexts that actually matter to them.

>> No.3174487

>>3174457

He is, yes.

>> No.3174505
File: 308 KB, 400x368, sloth_bike.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174505

>>3174487

So does he do, ahem, black magic then?

>> No.3174507

>>3174505

I don't know if Earthsea has that sort of divide. It seemed to be more grey, like "things you should do" and "things you shouldn't do", but not really divided into "black" and "white" schools.

>> No.3174520

>>3174507

-------------> The Joke
.
.
.
.
------------> your head.

>> No.3174528

>>3174520

I did it on purpose because your joke was dumb. And not the fun kind of dumb. the dumb kind of dumb.

>> No.3174544
File: 439 KB, 500x250, taylor_spaz.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174544

>>3174528

2dep3oo lel

>> No.3174545

>>3174544

Go back to 4chan, please.

>> No.3174553
File: 1.01 MB, 250x208, bear_polite.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3174553

>>3174545
>Go back to 4chan

lel

>> No.3174601

>>3174475

Or grown ups who can spot pretensions bullshit when they see it.

Really, do you put on your unemployment application form: Cannot work due to mouth having prolapsed into anus.

>> No.3174879

>>3173336
what the fuck

>> No.3174894

>>3173482
generalizing expert over here

>I know a few people wo act like that so I assume the ones I don't know act the same.

faggot. do you even think?

>> No.3174906

wait, are you guys talking about actual science fiction or fantasy with space setting?