/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3866045]

What does /lit/ think of Schopenhauer's views on women?

Women have the reasoning power of children.
>"Women are...childish, foolish, and short-sighted, in a word, are big children all their lives."

Women are all liars.
>"A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility. It is questionable whether they ought to be able to take an oath at all."

Women have never produced any worthwhile art.
>"[It] is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value."

All women should be housewives.
>"What the ought to be is housewives and girls hoping to become housewives who are educated in submissiveness."

Women are inferior to men in every possible way
>"[Laws] regard women as completely equal to men, which they are in no respect.

Is he right, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.3866051]

Schopy's always right.

[Anonymous No.3866075]

>>3866045
Sounds about right.

[Anonymous No.3866076]

beta misogyny from a beta philosopher.

[Anonymous No.3866078]

>>3866076
SRS pls go.

[Anonymous No.3866085]

>>3866076

How so? His reasoning behind women's inferiority is solid. Have you actually read the essay?

[Anonymous No.3866087]

>>3866076

He was actually quite successful with women, but he hated his mother's guts.

[Anonymous No.3866089]

Yes, but Mary Shelley and Jane Austen did write works that were considered worthwhile

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3866091]

>>3866087
>In the year 1831, Schopenhauer fell in love with a girl named Flora Weiss. At a boat party in Germany he made his advance by offering her a bunch of grapes. Flora’s diary records this event as follows:

>I didn't want them. I felt revolted because old Schopenhauer had touched them, and so I let them slide, quite gently, into the water behind me.

[Anonymous No.3866098]

>>3866089
3/10 I chuckled.

[Anonymous No.3866099]

>>3866091

Well sure, you can't expect an old man to succeed with every woman he fancies. As a young man, he had no problem getting laid.

[Anonymous No.3866100]

>>3866091
Source?

[Anonymous No.3866105]

>>3866091

Hahaha!

>cue 100 word essay on how all women are inferior

What a massive, elaborate example of Fox and the Grapes.

[Anonymous No.3866110]

>>3866105

*10000

[Anonymous No.3866112]

>>3866091
>historians combing through diaries of women looking for stories of philosophers hitting on them

[Anonymous No.3866115]

>>3866091
>>3866105

Bertrand Russell:
>he had many trivial love-affairs, which were sensual but not passionate

Wiki bio:
>In Dresden in 1819, Schopenhauer fathered, with a servant, an illegitimate daughter who was born and died the same year

Looks like Schopenhauer had an healthy sexual life.

[Anonymous No.3866121]

>>3866115

*a healthy

my bad it's late
also fuck you and good night

[Anonymous No.3866123]

I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."

AWWWWWWW

[Anonymous No.3866127]

>>3866123

Deep down, Schopy loves women. That's why he's so harsh on them.

[Anonymous No.3866142]

>>3866115

Looks like he never got over that girl who rejected him and hated himself so much he could only cope by writing essays about how it's girls that are the shitty ones, not him.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3866149]

>>3866115
Fathering a daughter with your maid isn't much to be proud of bro

Also w/r/t to women and fine arts, pic related

[Anonymous No.3866158]

outdated, obviously

[Anonymous No.3866167]

I've differing reports on Schopenhauer himself i.e. he could never get it in vs. he got it in quite often.

>>3866087
To be fair his mom did sound like a cunt and possibly drove his dad suicide.

[Anonymous No.3866176]

>>3866142

Looks like this, looks like that. I see you're an expert at groundless extrapolating.
It's obvious Schopenhauer has had sex numerous times in his life well into his twilight years (dirty sex with chambermaid, stable relationship with Caroline Richter, etc)
His disdain of women permeates all his work from beginning to end. This one unfortunate incident with little Flora has absolutely no bearing on the understanding of his essay on women.

[Anonymous No.3866200]

>>3866045

>SO RONERY ;_;

[Anonymous No.3866225]

>>3866176

This.
His sex life has no bearing on his essay.

[Anonymous No.3866233]

>>3866121
He 'ad a right elfy sex loif, I'd say.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3866242]

>>3866176
Richter's relationship with Schopenhauer was described as "on-again off-again," and though it lasted ten years, Richter bore another man's son while Schop suffered hemorrhoids farting around Europe. He died sitting at home with his cat.

Incidentally I found some sort of bizarre Schopenhauer hate-fiction which searching for more information on Richter, which is only really accurate in that he did indeed date Jageman for some time:
>Then there was Karoline Jageman—later known as the Countess of Heygendorff—who carried on with Schopenhauer for several years, though there was never any sexual consummation. She was intrigued by his intellect but found him to be physically repulsive. In her diary she wrote, “Arthur has an ear infection over which he wears a bandage to absorb the puss, which possibly explains why the old fool never fully listens. He only cares to harangue. The pompous old schnitzel relentlessly quotes ancient Greek philosophers—in Greek, no less!”

>The love of his life was an actress and showgirl named Caroline Richter. Like Karoline Jageman, she would date Schopenhauer but never sleep with him. In 1831 she had a child by another man, which naturally ended her involvement with Arthur. The other man, Louis Medon, would eventually abandon Caroline, which made her available to Schopenhauer once again, but by then she had contracted tuberculosis. His fear of contracting her disease outweighed his love for her and he never saw her again.

[Anonymous No.3866255]

uuuh reality is socially constructed

If fat women make me sick and thin ones are hot. if women act like children, if men are superior.

These all may be true from my pespective and in this reality, but they got here through certain social interactions.

Women at the time of SHopy were probably taught to act like children in order to succeed. Today women are taught to be something else, so are men.

many people in this thread are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.3866265]

>>3866255
to add to this:

I've noticed /pol/ has infiltrated /lit/ and infiltrated /gd/. Pol brings a lot of brain dead trash that can't into subjectivity to 4chan. /pol/ attracts a cancer to 4chan, and it inevitably spreads slowly to the other boards. KILL /pol/,

[Anonymous No.3866282]

>>3866265
the left here just as much, if not more so, assume legitimacy in their beliefs as the right.

[Anonymous No.3866287]

>>3866255

>reality is socially constructed

stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.3866290]

>>3866287
it is though

[Anonymous No.3866292]

Well, on the highschore of life, women have always been losing. They can't blame for nature making them weak. And dumb.

[Anonymous No.3866297]

>>3866290

define reality

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3866299]

>>3866282
What equivalent does the left have to flooding a thread about black authors with racial slurs and general shitposting? We've had plenty of discussions about right-wing authors, not without dissent, but it's a little more nuanced than twenty posts of "AHAHAH RIGHT WING FAAAAAAAAGS." It might even be the case that people say "I want /pol/ to go" too often, but this generally happens after someone says something that isn't even tangentially related to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.3866300]

>>3866297
you disagreed before asking for a definition? such integrity

[Anonymous No.3866303]

>>3866300

i want you to tell me your definition of reality so i can laugh at how retardeed you are

[Anonymous No.3866329]

>>3866303
Reality is everything that is the case.

[Anonymous No.3866336]

>>3866045
Schopenhauer also says women are capable of more sober judgement than men. But yeah his views are pretty despicable but what else do you expect from a male living in that culture?

Unless you take every single thing ur fav philosopher says as the absolute word of god truth you should be able to sift the shite from the good stuff.

Also wasn't he rejected by a bunch of ladies in his time? Dude was dropping spaghetti all over the show and had no /r9k/ to turn to.

[Anonymous No.3866355]

>>3866336
>Schopenhauer also says women are capable of more sober judgement than men

He never says this at all

[Anonymous No.3866388]

>>3866355
"This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there[...]"

[Anonymous No.3866394]

>>3866287
it is socially constructed.what are you a fucking religious person?Or just /pol/?

>2013
>not knowing reality is socially constructed

[Anonymous No.3866397]

>>3866394
adding to this, pol get out of my lit. you probably don't even into subjectivity. do you even is out?

[Anonymous No.3866398]

>>3866397
ought*

[Anonymous No.3866400]

>>3866388

nice reading comprehension

in context hes saying that women are only like that because they're like children, they only see things in simplicity, and cannot reason further

[Anonymous No.3866485]

>"[It] is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value."

I am actually baffled that people exist who don't recognize this for nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3866499]

Sounds like an old fart. Did he get laid much?

[Anonymous No.3866501]

>>3866400
He says women are more sober in their judgement than men, who over-analyze, whether this is due to childish simplicity or not you're still wrong.

>>3866485
His other stuff is pretty good though...

[Anonymous No.3866503]

>>3866499
Basically never, except to prostitutes. He stalked a few teenaged girls all of him rejected his advances.

[Anonymous No.3866506]

this thread again

jesus fuckin christ

[Anonymous No.3866513]

>>3866503
oh how i love feel guy

[Anonymous No.3866521]

if there's a lesson to be learned from schopy, it's that being a sad, smart dude doesnt mean anything to women. it doesn't really mean anything to anybody.

[Anonymous No.3866526]

>>3866045
I think that anybody who takes that logic serious is pretty fucking backwoods. Considering the fact that society simply could not function if half of it were utterly useless.

I like to compare men and women to offense and defense. Everyone wants a strong offense, it's impressive, glorifying and you have something concrete to show for it. Most people, if offered a shield or a sword, would probably choose the sword.
Defense on the other hand is something inconspicuous. It's something that is only visible through being attacked instead of attacking. It's staying in the background and it's unobtrusive by itself, you have nothing to really show for it. Defense is generally underrated, but a good offense without a good defense will only take you so far. You need both to succeed. Arguably, you'd even need defense more.
Neither are less important than the other, neither are less useful, you just see the results of offense more and so one assumes through notable effect that offense is "better".

[Anonymous No.3866538]

I think he's mostly wrong, but I admit that most women seem to actually try to prove him right.

[Anonymous No.3866544]

>>3866538
What was it like meeting most of the women in the world?

[Anonymous No.3866564]

>>3866544

Disappointing.

Women had better hide who they are than reveal it. Our fantasies are stronger, nobler, and overall more beautiful than the reality of what a woman is.

[Anonymous No.3866569]

>>3866521
>being a sad, smart dude
>doesnot mean anything to anybody

It does to me, why did you think it wouldn't? Schopenhauer is more influential than anyone in this thread ever will be.

If you, as a women, get angry when reading Schoppy, you're just as bad as the athiests in my old philosophy 101 class who wouldn't read Descartes because he mentioned God.

They're products of their time and culture, and so are we

[Anonymous No.3866570]

>>3866176
>>3866225
>>3866115
it has a little bearing on it, i would say.

it says in his biography that women in general didn't like him and that he resented it. he wasn't celibate like nietzsche though

[Anonymous No.3866573]

>>3866569
>Schopenhauer is more influential than anyone in this thread ever will be.

Wrong. Most people will never read Schop, ever. We're talking way over 99% of the population.

By giving a sandwhich to the homeless, I'm more influential.

>your face when Lady Gaga is more influential

Sorry bro.

[Anonymous No.3866575]

>>3866569
i just mean in real life.

most people live life in a less-than-examined way. they dont have time for the gravity of schopenhauer's position on human life

i think they might appreciate his eloquence, thats about it

[Anonymous No.3866578]

>>3866115
>Looks like Schopenhauer had an healthy sexual life.

That's not healthy. That's dysfunctional. Contrary to your virgin belief, sex isn't the holy grail of life and it isn't grandiose or extraordinary and it is inferior to long relationships because they're the easy mode. It's nothing more than masturbation with someone's body.

Hard mode is an actual relationship where you care (with acts) about someone.

That requires strength of spirit.

The rest is just lazy and selfish and easy.

[Anonymous No.3866584]

>>3866255

You're wrong. I'm sorry university did this to you and you never noticed.

You should have started using your critical skills as soon as you heard this:

"The purpose of all social sciences is to prove that there is no such thing as human nature."

What serious science starts with its conclusion and endeavours to prove it forever after? Wouldn't it be smarter to search first, back up theories, and conclude last?

That's when I knew I was in for some serious spin and propaganda.

>it didn't fail

>all humans have the exact same bones and the difference is explained by nutrition

>in the meantime, forensic students learn how to recognise various skulls by race, regardless of nutrition because it changes nothing

>African humans don't have a certain bone at the base of their nose that all other races have

Social sciences, and I have a BA in them, are propaganda, heavily biased on one side of things.

[Anonymous No.3866587]

>>3866336
>what else do you expect from a male living in that culture?

These:
>writing great books
>conquering new lands
>exploring the world
>developing science
>putting women where they belong
>building empires

None of which the men of out time are able to do.

[Anonymous No.3866592]

>>3866394

>2013
>still thinks being socially constructed, if it is, means invalid

"Your ace is a social construct."
"So what, I still score. Fuck you."

[Anonymous No.3866595]

>>3866485

Name one woman who did something artistically original and important.

Hard mode: before feminism and putting worthless artists and writers on pedestals.

Lesbians don't count as they're men.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.3866616]

>>3866595
Sei Shonagon, Murasaki Shikibu, Ono no Komachi.

[Anonymous No.3866621]

>>3866595
If lesbians don't cause because they're men, does that mean women can claim all gay men?

[Anonymous No.3866627]

>>3866621

You'd think so, but no. Homos are still men because they operate the same excellent machine. Women have faulty machines but lesbians have better pilots due to being somewhat similar to men in this respect.

[Anonymous No.3866628]

>>3866595
Bronte sisters?

[Anonymous No.3866631]

>>3866628
Don't offer up examples when you don't know much about literature.

[Anonymous No.3866632]

>>3866616
Nice try, but that's 3 women.

[Anonymous No.3866634]

>>3866628

They weren't good. Feminists made them big but even Wuthering Heights was originally children literature.

It's like taking Rowling decades later and claiming it's the summit of 20th century and early 21st literature.

[Anonymous No.3866635]

>>3866634
>Wuthering Heights
>Children's literature
Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.3866636]

>>3866616

Japanese don't count as they are a superior race and thus their inferior women come just on par with white men.

[Anonymous No.3866637]

>>3866636
Now you're just giving excuses.

[Anonymous No.3866638]

>>3866635

It's in the introduction to the Penguin edition. I'm sure it's not too hard to look up.

[Anonymous No.3866639]

>>3866636
I imagine you'll just keep moving the goalposts?

[Anonymous No.3866641]

>>3866635
Would love to have this citation

[Anonymous No.3866642]

>>3866638
No, you look it up. I'm not finding your citations for you.

[Anonymous No.3866643]

>>3866634
That just proves Victorian children had good taste.

[Anonymous No.3866644]

>>3866642

You don't believe my info: you check it out.

[Anonymous No.3866646]

>>3866595
Aphra Behn.

[Anonymous No.3866647]

>>3866644
>Makes a point
>Refuses to back it up
>Tells a skeptic to look it up themselves
Clearly your point is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3866651]

>>3866647

I'm not getting my edition just for you. You're not that important to me.

I clearly remember reading this in that edition though: people considered it a kid's story and only kids would read it because it was written by a woman and therefore wasn't serious literature.

And it is indeed not very serious. What do you expected from secluded virgins though?

[Anonymous No.3866652]

>>3866638
I'm trying to find it at this moment, though I feel this isn't a credible source:
"Published a year before her death of tuberculosis in 1848, it is perhaps the most passionately original novel in English literature."

[Anonymous No.3866656]

>>3866651
There's a difference between something being considered children's literature and being written as children's literature. If you don't know that difference, I'm not sure you should be here.

[Anonymous No.3866657]

>>3866652

What's so original about it? It depicted violence. OK. My mind is blown. Violence!

[Anonymous No.3866659]

>>3866651
And now that you mention secluded virgins,
>Emily Dickenson

[Anonymous No.3866660]

>>3866656

I know the difference it's pretty clear in my posts. I personally think it's a kid book too, though. It reads as though it was written by Stephenie Meyer when she was a teenager.

[Anonymous No.3866661]

>>3866659

Her poetry fucking sucks. Sorry.

>dashes, dashes everywhere
>I can't into punctuation, therefore dashes

[Anonymous No.3866666]

>>3866660
You insist that it's children's literature, when it was considered to be so. There's a difference between what you think and what it actually was.

[Anonymous No.3866667]

>>3866657
>mise-en-abyme
>concentric narrators
>unconventional sexuality
>a lot of violence

That's fairly original

[Anonymous No.3866669]

>>3866661
>opinions

[Anonymous No.3866670]

>>3866661
The dashes serve a formal purpose, silly.

>this Cummings guy can't capitalize for shit

[Anonymous No.3866672]

>>3866667

Original or retarded? The whole thing about the narrators was fucking moronic.

>someone hears a story
>tells it to someone else
>who tells it to some landlady
>who tells it to some tenant
>who writes it down

Chinese whispers would have wrecked this story. Who can believe in this apart from children? You can't justify this crap.

Same thing for Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, another woman, another dumbass structure.

[Anonymous No.3866675]

>>3866672
I agree with the Brontes, but I actually like some of Shelley's work. I seriously doubt a child would slog through the snow scene in Frankenstein or even understand the book beyond a surface reading.

[Anonymous No.3866680]

>>3866675

I never said Frankenstein was a kid's book. It's an epic sci-fi novel whose style was wrecked by Mister Shelley (he replaced good simple words by sophisticated bullshit that sounds wrong).

[Anonymous No.3866705]

>>3866634
Jane Eyre, maybe, but if you're going to come here and tell us Wuthering Heights is children's literature (like you've even read them) and that that and Frankenstein aren't two masterpieces of the English novel, then we're gonna have to let you go.

bait

[Anonymous No.3866713]

>>3866705

To be honest, I don't remember Wuthering Heights well enough to judge. It didn't sound like kid lit.

As to Frankie, it's one of the first English novels I've read (it's not my native language) and I loved it. It taught me many new words, back then.

[Anonymous No.3866779]

If I ever meet the person who told internet misogynists about Schopenhauer's essay on women, I will punch them in the nose.

It's such a marginal, pointless little essay among the work of a philosopher who is truly brilliant. But it's all these assholes read, because they're gabbing for anything to back up their hatred, and thus is will be all Schopenhauer is known for in these circles.

[retreat No.3866794]

>think: well, now. i haven't indulged in wasting time browsing /lit/ in a few days. i should make this permanent.
>except..there are probably some interesting or entertaining topics active now that i am missing.
>well, i suppose a quick look wouldn't hurt. wouldn't want to deprive myself.
first topic: Feminist Liars Women Housewives Women Misogyny Women

i'll leave the light on for you, then, before i back out.

[Anonymous No.3866822]

>>3866526
So nobody has an opinion on this?

[Anonymous No.3866839]

>>3866822

No, no one has an opinion on your prescriptive gender role bullshit with a weak metaphor and reasoning as old as fucking time. You could have gathered this from the fact that everyone fucking ignored it, you attention clamoring waste.

[Anonymous No.3866841]

>>3866839

Read this, faggot.

[Anonymous No.3866846]

>>3866841

>muh biotruth

[Anonymous No.3866851]

>>3866846

>biotruth

[Anonymous No.3866856]

>>3866841
You should do some reading yourself.

[Anonymous No.3866859]

>>3866856

None of these ever changed anyone's DNA. Sex is DNA. That's all there is to it.

Stop fantasising you fucking otherkin faggot.

[Anonymous No.3866860]

His views on women are obviously outdated and shouldn't be taken seriously in the modern world.

And can the people whinging about /pol/ please just shut the fuck up? You're just as bad as some of the braindead spergs that brows /pol/.

[Anonymous No.3866862]

>>3866856
ewww

[Anonymous No.3866880]

>>3866859

I can't believe you just tried to refute a book based on its subtitle. /lit/ scholarship, ladies and gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.3866881]

>>3866860
>You're just as bad as some of the braindead spergs that brows /pol/.

No they aren't. Not until they start bombing threads with infographics.

[Anonymous No.3866883]

>>3866880

Believe it, because I did. With reason.

[Anonymous No.3866886]

>>3866859
Then why is pink assigned to girls and blue to boys, why is body hair seen as manly while women also have it, why is there such a controversy over that sportswoman who naturally produces more testosterone, why are girls expected to know how to cook like it were natural, and more importantly, why are you such an idiot?

[Anonymous No.3866884]

>>3866859
>Sex is DNA.
Sex is belief in others' genitals. You can have guys with XX chromes and penises, you can have chicks with XY and the whole vulva, vagina crap.
http://jenapincott.com/when-the-perfect-woman-is-genetically-male/

[Anonymous No.3866885]

>>3866880

"Gender" alone is enough to call bullshit. It's called sex and it's a biological concept. Period.

[Anonymous No.3866889]

>>3866883

>muh reason

This amount of fedora is staggering.

[Anonymous No.3866890]

>>3866884

Freaks are freaks. Funny how, to define the majority, you fucks always rely on freaks.

That's not how science works.

>Then why is pink assigned to girls and blue to boys
Depends what culture you're in; in some, it's the exact opposite. In neither case does this have anything to do with biology.

Get your head out of your ass, ignoramus fuck.

[Anonymous No.3866891]

>>3866886

Please stop trying to argue with ignorant ideologues. You'll never convince them the earth is older than 6000 years.

[Anonymous No.3866892]

>>3866890
If a particular case doesn't fit your worldview then, if you are rational, you have to reject your worldview, not facts.

[Anonymous No.3866894]

>>3866890
>Depends what culture you're in;
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT GENDER IS ABOUT FUCKTARD
>. In neither case does this have anything to do with biology.
BIOLOGY IS INTERPRETED BY CULTURE SO IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

[Anonymous No.3866895]

>>3866890

Hahaha, good going dude you just conceded the argument.

>misogynist biotruthers so ignorant they don't even know how to argue against their opponents without conceding immediately
>mfw

[Anonymous No.3866896]

>>3866891

Ridiculous.


>>3866892

Exactly. Try to apply this if you can.

>sex comes from DNA
>males have male genitals, females have female genitals
>freaks have freaks' features and prove nothing

Your worldview is wrong, but you cling to mutant cases to hold it, whereas reason suggest you use the majority to make majority claims.

[Anonymous No.3866897]

>>3866895

I think you're missing something.

>sex = biological, real, genetic
>gender = made up, argued over by ideologists

There are two sexes, male and female. All else is moot. You just can't accept it.

[Anonymous No.3866898]

>>3866896
>Ridiculous.

Oh no he called me ridiculous now I lose :OoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo

[Anonymous No.3866899]

>>3866890
>That's not how science works.
>why do you physicists look so much at the speed of light? Funny how, to define the majority of speeds, you fucks always rely on the one freakish speed.
Special cases are integral to all science. It's usually where you get the most interesting results.

The fact is, though, that when we say man we mean something like "I assume that is a penis down there and not a rolled up sock", rather than some abstract and likely unfamiliar notion of chromosomes. Otherwise it'd be the male chicken laying the eggs after all.

[Anonymous No.3866900]

>>3866897

>this amount of scientism

SO MUCH FEDORA

[Anonymous No.3866901]

>>3866896
>brings "science"
>knows nothing about refutation
Top kek.

>whereas reason suggest you use the majority to make majority claims.
The majority of people on earth lives in asia, therefore everyone is asian.

>gender = made up, argued over by ideologists
Exactly. That's a social construct that interprets biology.

[Anonymous No.3866902]

I think he was frustrated enough to forget about the muses, and not enough not to write about them.

[Anonymous No.3866905]

>>3866897
That's a common distinction, but 3rd wavers put this to bed somewhat. A lot of what we would label under "sex" as in male or female is socially constructed.

[Anonymous No.3866910]

>>3866899

You have to be trolling... Light is rather the norm in our daily lives. Everything you see, you see by it. Sounds like a fair physical cardinal point.

>>3866900

Not often called a scientist. So you deny that DNA defines sex, that's interesting. Show proof or something supporting your claim.

>That's a social construct that interprets biology.

There isn't much to interpret. There are two sets of genitals, we called one A, the other B.

That's all, and you deny that.

[Anonymous No.3866913]

>>3866910

>HE THINKS I CALLED HIM A SCIENTIST

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.3866914]

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

Whatever.

[Anonymous No.3866915]

>>3866905

Freaks don't challenge the general rule. Surviving a plane crash, while possible, isn't the norm.

Having two heads is possible, but doesn't challenge what the overwhelming majority is like: one-headed.

There are no sexes between the known two: there are only malformations which you try to pass as a spectrum.

[Anonymous No.3866916]

>>3866913

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.3866917]

>>3866299

That's bullshit. /lit/ has hissy fits over Spengler threads for God's sake.

[Anonymous No.3866919]

>>3866897
But not everyone falls neatly into the male/female sexual distinction.

[Anonymous No.3866920]

>>3866913

[Anonymous No.3866923]

>>3866915
>There are no sexes between the known two: there are only malformations which you try to pass as a spectrum.
See, you say that there's two categories that are the vast majority, plus other categories. You acknowledge that there's more than two, but actually you really want to call those other categories by a derogatory name, that's actually your whole point. You just don't like it, this has nothing to do with the objective description of reality.

[Anonymous No.3866934]

>>3866856

Do these people really think that out of tens of thousands of years of evolution and gender roles that have remained broadly similar for millennia the only difference between men and women is their genitals? And that the gender differences that are so obvious in the animal kingdom don't apply to humans?

[Anonymous No.3866936]

>>3866934

>broadly similar
>how broad is that, anonymous?
>as broad as I need it to be

[Anonymous No.3866938]

>>3866923
Listen, only two colors exist, blue and red. Any other colors you may perceive are only malformed attempts to be either blue or red.

[Anonymous No.3866940]

>>3866910
>You have to be trolling... Light is rather the norm in our daily lives. Everything you see, you see by it. Sounds like a fair physical cardinal point.
By that measure, people with things like AIS are also the norm, you are simply unaware of it. This is the closest I can be bothered to get to a prevalence of such things (ashamedly from wiki):
>The prevalence of intersex depends on which definition is used. According to the ISNA definition above, 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.[9] Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to assign them to a given sex category (i.e. male or female). According to Fausto-Sterling's definition of intersex,[10] on the other hand, 1.9 percent of human births are intersex.[10]
>According to Leonard Sax the prevalence of intersex "restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female" is about 0.018%.
So at most conservative a little under 1 in 5000 people have a sex which is not commensurate with their chromosomes after medical intervention, about the same number of babies born without an anal opening. However, about 1 in 1000 to 500 were born with bodies both not commensurate with either sex particularly, so you most likely know a few people who have had to have their bodies changed to match their chomes.

[Anonymous No.3866949]

Why can't all the feminists and women leave /lit/ and find another place to ruin.

[Anonymous No.3866957]

>>3866949
Because feminists and women are /lit/. There are plenty of fedoracore /lit/boards if you don't like it elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.3866958]

>>3866934
- Sexual dimorphism has actually decreased in hominin species over time.
- Differences between male and female bodies exist but are small compared with variation within each sex
- Most sexual dimorphism in animals has nothing to do with humans. Male peacocks growing colorful tails and female black widows eating their mates are barely tangentially realted to human behavior.

[Anonymous No.3866962]

>>3866949
the funny thing is that the only reason these topics can even exist with any prevalence is 4chan's unlimited supply of underage rural net-misogynists.

[Anonymous No.3866977]

Sade had the best view on people in general.

[Anonymous No.3866983]

>>3866938
I like it, I'm gonna reuse this argument.

[Anonymous No.3866985]

>>3866958

>Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 30 percent greater lung volume per body mass. They have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher hemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.

Why would these differences exist if men and women were just as suited as each other to every single role? If you are willing to admit that there are significant physical differences other than genitals do you not think it reasonable that mental differences would have evolved in tandem?

[Anonymous No.3866993]

>>3866985
> do you not think it reasonable that mental differences would have evolved in tandem?
Now you're just speculating. You can't even differ a man's brain from a woman's brain using solely structural MRI datas.

[Hexer !NHpYSS45yU No.3867001]

Did I just... stumble into Arcanine?
Personally, I don't think you need to be a virgin to hate women or be a Casanova to think well of them, but that's just personal experience.
Actually, most of the really successful people in that regard that I know of are raging sexists when not in female company, so w/e.

As for the views themselves: While there are cognitive differences between the sexes, statements such as "Women cannot keep promises" or "Women ought to be housewives because...REASONS" have precious little to do with anything approaching science and therefore belongs onto the trashheap of philosophical history.

[Anonymous No.3867002]

>>3866985
Differences between the average man and the average woman are insignificant compared to the range of variation within each sex. I don't believe that the evolution of the human brain has significantly diverged along sex lines. Physical and mental difference between men and women is not great enough to explain social difference.

[Anonymous No.3867008]

>>3867002
>Physical and mental difference between men and women is not great enough to explain social difference.
Yeah but it's easier because it doesn't hurt the head when thinking about social stuff, and this way I can justify my bigotry will sounding smart because I'm using scientific words.

[Anonymous No.3867029]

>>3866578
>Contrary to your virgin belief, sex isn't the holy grail of life and it isn't grandiose or extraordinary

fuck off,
you non-virgin fags can't have it both ways

either sex is amazing and we're supposed to be ashamed for being virgins (as you insist) or sex isn't amazing and we're not supposed to be that bothered. You can't have it both ways.

You smug bastards.

>"yeah, I've had looooads of sex,but it's not like it matters or anything, I'm sooo maturrrrrrre that I don't really care about sex ^_^"

[Anonymous No.3867035]

>>3866255
> reality is socially constructed

wisdom for 17 year old psuedointellectuals

[Anonymous No.3867036]

>>3866564
>Our fantasies are stronger, nobler, and overall more beautiful than the reality of what a woman is.

lol, I'm a man and I know this is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3867038]

Hello everyone I've made this handy picture for those having a discussion on gender differences.

[Anonymous No.3867040]

>>3866916
stop laughing, laughter is a social construct

[Anonymous No.3867047]

Social Scientists are closet fascists. They believe that they can make human beings in to whatever they want them to be by controlling their "social conditioning".

[Anonymous No.3867048]

>>3866993

You are a smart person and I am not attempting to discredit your statement, but I feel I should tell you that data is already plural, so you don't have to add an s to it.

[Anonymous No.3867054]

>>3867038
Bad metaphor. If anything, we're talking about the difference between straight ladders and step ladders, and even that's insufficient.

[Anonymous No.3867061]

>>3867038
You can eat food from a chair and can sit on a table...

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3867075]

>>3866917
>not without dissent
This is a long thread about Spengler; it has the same person posting a lot but the worst response it got (in nebulous terms of value) is "Correlation doesn't equal causation! *sage*." There are a lot of people who disagree, but they criticize people reading him for fortune telling, not for being fascists
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S3811457
here's one on Evola, where out of several helpful posts on his thoughts and where to find his books, there's one poster who says "Italian fascism, why don't you just get Mein Kampf, fag" and that's it
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S3810575

Here's the one on black authors
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S3863990
>five posts in
"Maybe I'd read something if all books by niggers weren't about how tough it's being niggers."
"niggerature"
and so on and so on
later in the thread, presumably when this young scout called for backup and /pol/'s crack team of internet racists jumped in, it was just a bunch of posts about /pol/ being the last bastion of sanity, "I'm from /pol/ and I'll NEVER leave," ">B-B-BUT MY TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSOR TAUGHT ME ABOUT THE EVILS OF DA WHITE MAN!", insults about feminism, and so on. You can't really compare the this with the Spengler threads without being severely deluded.

>>3867038
oh damn the infographics are coming in everyone prepare your minds to be blown away by two lines of text plus "this is what [group I don't like] actually believes" and a funny picture

[Anonymous No.3867098]

On 4chan I agree with any opinion which denigrates those who aren't young white males like myself.

In real life I'm a liberal feminist anti-racist with socialist leanings who is ashamed of my country and myself

[Anonymous No.3867110]

>>3867040

Stop talking, language is a social construct

[Anonymous No.3867127]

>>3867110
>implying language isn't a social construct
Bitch, we wouldn't need language if we weren't in a society.

[Anonymous No.3867132]

>>3867127
Chicken, egg, etc etc.
Language is a prerequisite to society.

[Anonymous No.3867133]

>>3867132
What about Bees?

[Anonymous No.3867136]

>>3867133
They have a language.
A fairly complex one, even.

[Anonymous No.3867145]

>>3867132
I disagree entirely.

[Anonymous No.3867147]

>>3867136
I've never spoken to one.

[Anonymous No.3867148]

>>3867145
Explain. This discussion interests me.

[Anonymous No.3867149]

>>3867136
I wish giving directions in English involved precise buttwiggling too, anon.

[Anonymous No.3867155]

>>3867149
Sometimes it does.

[Anonymous No.3867161]

>>3867147
If that was a reason to think they don't have a language, you'd be doubting if women could speak too.

[Anonymous No.3867164]

You are all wrong OP.
History's most successful book, Harry Potter, was written by a woman.

[Anonymous No.3867168]

>>3867155
I have been asking the way to all the wrong places. Tell me of this promised land, anon.

[Anonymous No.3867173]

>>3867148
From a theoretical perspective, one human being would not require a language. It would satisfy its base needs, and that would be it. However, two human beings (a society) requires a method of communication. Whether that language is spoken, scent-based, signed, or what have you, it is unnecessary without a plurality of individuals. It develops as as species evolves, becoming as complex as said species'
average level of intelligence and utility calls for. But you're right, chicken vs. egg. It's a difficult thing to prove or disprove.

[Anonymous No.3867174]

>>3867168
Well, ass wiggling helps you when you're coming, and if you're coming you need to know where you're going.

[Anonymous No.3867177]

>>3867161
But I've spoken to...

Oh anon

[Anonymous No.3867192]

>>3867161
>If that was a reason to think they don't have a language, you'd be doubting if women could speak too.
[burning intensifies]

[Anonymous No.3867193]

>>3867164
But that's 50 sha- oh...

[Anonymous No.3867236]

>>3867075
Stop tripfagging and stop saging, cunt. You aren't impressing anyone. And no I'm not the anon you're arguing with, I'm just commenting on your tripfaggery. Get out.

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3867244]

>>3867236
why do you people think calling a tripfag a tripfag is going to insult them

[Anonymous No.3867259]

>>3867244
what do you mean "you people"?

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3867264]

>>3867259
blacks

[Anonymous No.3867265]

>>3867047
Do you even subscribe to the idea that BNW is a utopia?

[Anonymous No.3867269]

>>3867264
oh carry on then, for a second I though you were getting on my Aryan brotherhood.

[Anonymous No.3867267]

>>3867244
Hurt your tender little ego? Desperately clamour respect or recognition on largely anonymous internet boards? Tripfag is indicative of a stupid, egotistical mentality that represents a failure of social skills in the real world and a need to transfer that failure online to get "known" and have people talk about you, even if negatively.

Cancer

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3867289]

>>3867267
i dont see it

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3867296]

>>3867236
Get OUT *Elaine shove*
*Kramer racism*
*Jerry uncomfortable fall into obscurity*
*George McDLT commercial*

If I weren't tripping you couldn't filter me; you would have to actually comment on the content of my posts.
I'd prefer to be an avatar with naked pictures of myself and the book I'm currently reading, I'd prefer it if everyone did that, but sadly that's against the rules.
I'll never stop saging; if I were a king of France I'd be CHARLES LE SAGE

>>3867267
see above w/r/t filtering

[Anonymous No.3867343]

>tfw Schopenhauer predicted evopsych that totally correctly reasons women are ambitionless spoiled brats who exist to consume and passively exploit men
>tfw feminists still weak pussies who can't take such polemics like a man would, and give Schopenhauer a big hug for providing them with the harshest and thus most honest possible criticism, the greatest fuel for self-improvement and self-reflection
>tfw women still respond to "1% of STEM majors? Jeez, are women just bad at science?" with MISOGYNIST VIRGIN LOSER NERD NEVER HAVING SEX I AM ENTERING YOUR SCREENNAME NOW INTO THE REGISTER OF VIRGINS AND TELLING THE WOMYNPOLICE TO PUT A WARRANT OUT TO CENSOR YOUR THOUGHTCRIME FOR SAYING I AM BAD

You'll know feminism works when they embrace Schopenhauer, Vilar, etc., and respond to the most harsh criticism with glee at the prospect of disproving it rather than trying to stamp out all dissent.

[Anonymous No.3867385]

>>3867343
>>tfw Schopenhauer predicted evopsych that totally correctly reasons women are ambitionless spoiled brats who exist to consume and passively exploit men
Links? Articles?

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3867397]

>>3867343
Remember that evopsych professor who argued that women go into heat, then that obese PhD applicants don't have the willpower to make it in academia? And then he tried to weasel out of it by saying he was "conducting research on inflammatory Twitter posts" or some other obvious lie? Evopsych is a joke.

[Anonymous No.3867400]

>>3866666
Mother of god, look at those quints.

In response to the OP: all the negative qualities listed apply to the average male...

[Anonymous No.3867415]

>>3867397
Remember that [guy who was wrong and said silly things]? And then he [did something bad or stupid or maybe wore a fedora]? [Any field or idea you want to apply this argument to] is a joke.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3867439]

>>3867415
I'm well aware of the risks in making a statement like that, but when I'm arguing with people who don't have the patience to research feminism beyond tumblr posts and screencaps of tumblr posts, I'm willing to pull together a couple of absurd examples and call it a day. Intellectual terrorism is underrated anyway.

Also I'd never insult someone just for wearing a fedora, what would Scooby say

[Anonymous No.3867491]

>>3867439
>I'm well aware of the risks of being intellectually dishonest, but I only use it when I'm sure my opponents are a priori incorrect on the basis of a strawman.

I dunno man. There are some really prominent evopsych niggers out there, and then a huge and vibrant research community besides, and they aren't in any sense "discredited" or frowned upon by the mainstream anymore. There was a lull there, sure. But Darwin's second book was evopsych. It's not a new thing.

[Anonymous No.3867517]

ofc he's mostly wrong, more even in his time when women were neglected from higher education.

I liked some of his writing, but he's obviously a shithead not being able to think this straight.

/lit/ is full of underage and/or fat-virgin-misogynist dudes, that's probably why he's so discussed here.

[Hexer !NHpYSS45yU No.3867524]

>>3867517
>that's probably why he's so discussed here.
D-did you just discredit all of Schopenhauer's work based on his opinions on one topic?

[Anonymous No.3867530]

I base my beliefs on men and women based on how we evolved because I think humans are animals at heart; intelligent animals, but animals nonetheless. The woman should look after the family and the house for her husband, while the man should provide safety and security for his wife and children. Naturally I think feminism is a stupid concept, but I don't think men are inherently better than women. They're both good at something that the other is not, and they can't live without each other.

[Anonymous No.3867531]

>>3867517
>women were neglected from higher education.

[Anonymous No.3867562]

Nikola Tesla thought that women were naturally superior to men and that this was becoming more evident as society stopped pressuring them to fill roles which prevented their potential from being realized.

[Anonymous No.3867564]

>>3867562
And look how relevant he is

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3867565]

>>3867491
It's not really a matter of evopsych people being categorically wrong—I'm sure there are venerable scholars in the field—but when people are trying to say that evolutionary psychology absolutely proves that women are liars, inferior, etc, it's easier for me to shoot down evolutionary psychology absolutely, at their level of discourse (though I'm no Ben Garrison), than to provide a nuanced critique that they won't read; it's like that thing Nietzsche said about gazing into monsters in anime or whatever.

[Anonymous No.3867574]

>>3867531
The issue has always been one of the people recording history rather than the women themselves. It's not like there haven't been great women composers of every century, but neckbearded misogynists can't feel so superior going on about the achievements of women as they can't claim to be part of that group.

[Anonymous No.3867577]

>>3867574
>muh sojiny
stop

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3867580]

>>3867562
Tesla also thought that electronic communication would solve all global conflicts and look at where we are now

I blame that schmuck Marconi

[Anonymous No.3867617]

>>3867574
>It's not like there haven't been great women composers of every century
I guess you're trolling or whatever but yeah this is the case.

I don't think women are inferior. I think women are made inferior by the wonderful dialectic of:
>women don't compose anything on par with men
>WOW WOMEN A++++ GREAT SUPER AWESOME HERE'S YOUR AWARD FOR HAVING A VAGINA NEAT THANKS GREAT GOOD GREAT JOB BEING A WOMAN WOMEN ARE GREAT

Women ARE inferior, but they don't have to be. Schopenhauer is right and he should inspire in women a sort of vitalism and activism that overcomes these shortcomings. It's telling that Camille Paglia thought she was a "man in a woman's body" when she was just a normal, ambitious, outgoing, aggressive person, because women have so firmly introjected their boring meek worldview that this is the most logical conclusion when it is rejected.

[Anonymous No.3867626]

>>3867565
i think this happens in a lot of fields. Genetics and evolution and such other subjects that need to be parsed of all the numbers and abbreviations and distilled down into an abstract to maybe vaguely convey the point of the research (but not its design, funding or methods) while also being "everyman" enough subject that people think they ought to be able to weigh in on them leads to all sorts of weird confusions about whether the conclusion is valid, what the conclusion is, or what do scientists even do in labs.
Pop science or philosophy aren't going to warn their readers that for the purposes of this article we're going to tell you a nice story instead of give you the tools to engage with the subject with deep comprehension because that would be bad for business.
On the other hand, people don't take well to being called manipulative or deceptive or promiscuous or various other labels, because they're not socially beneficial to be attached to your actions, despite them being immensely valuable to survival and evolution when discreetly practised without the acquired label.
tl;dr- we're stuck with that shit until the borg assimilate us

[Anonymous No.3868630]

>>3867524
sorry if my english is not clear enough

I'm just saying that because Schopenhauer wrote about his misogynistic views is mostly discussed here because /lit/ is a misogynistic board.

I haven't say anything about his merits, but when he's discussed is mostly about his views on women

[Hexer !NHpYSS45yU No.3868640]

>>3868630
...
Better.