/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4353530]

Wow this is probably the stupidest article I read the whole year:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/12/09/in_no_regrets_women_writers_talk_about_what_it_was_like_to_read_literature.html

[Anonymous No.4353567]

didn't emily gould run a website that traced celebrities whereabouts

[Anonymous No.4353570]

>>4353530
keep fishing for clicks, fuck face

have fun with your dying medium

[Anonymous No.4353574]

women don't like stupid manchild characters? wow, what a surprise.

[Anonymous No.4353577]

>kerouac
>canonical
>bukowski, mailer, roth
>the classics

jesus h.

nevermind the little dialogue about jam sessions being "male-dominated spaces." if it was so horrible, why not go do something else?

also, isn't the idea that you need to relate to the character of your gender in a book kind of stupid? why can't you relate to the male just because you identify as female? too much responsibility?

[Anonymous No.4353583]

Worlds without straight men appealed to me,” Gould says. “I liked the idea that there could be narratives that didn’t operate on the presumption of women’s dependence on men for love, money, and support.” She later realized “that women who love men are going to have to come to terms with their complicity in their own repression and subjugation, and find ways to address it.”

This made me weep all I wanted to do was love somebody anybody but they must make it so hard for me they drive me away, and what have I done, I have only given them the most respect, given them all the dignity I could give another, and still they shun me, oh what have I done I only wanted to love somebody

[Anonymous No.4353588]

>>4353577
everything on this planet is shit

[Anonymous No.4353591]

Of course, women are not the only ones trying to figure out their identities through reading. Take what happened to male writer Mark Greif: “Philip Roth is the person I’m most sorry I read when I was young,” Greif said in a 2007 n+1 panel. “It ruined my life.” Reading him as a 13-year-old, “I was convinced I was going to get laid. … Philip Roth seemed to make it clear that you become a writer, and then you have sex all the time, and you’re ridiculously rich … I was like, ‘This is all going to be so easy,’

Where do these retards come from?

[Anonymous No.4353592]

>>4353577
But even the whole relating thing. It seems that unless the book talks about them and their very personal problems then they don't care.

The irony is they are the same people that usually complain about the narcissism of authors.

[Anonymous No.4353597]

>>4353591
New School and Columbia grad students.

[Anonymous No.4353607]

>>4353583
quit being a whiny bitch then

[Anonymous No.4353612]

>>4353577
yeah, the jam session thing kind of annoyed me b/c i know plenty of girls who would love to sit around and play music but all these bitches do is complain as if they're being denied the right to join in. pick up an instrument or make something yourself, whose fault is it that you keep ending up in rooms with guy musicians?

[Anonymous No.4353624]

>>4353607
Epic.

[Anonymous No.4353649]

>>4353612
yea. it's kind of her fault for hanging out with such a douche

[Anonymous No.4353659]

It's like these people don't understand literature at all.

Also,
>Kerouac
>Bukowski
>Canon
>Good
Kek. Stupid cunts.

[Anonymous No.4353682]

I don't like the fact that people who are uneducated about feminism will read this and assume that all feminists are a bunch of whiny cunts who want their hands held.

[Anonymous No.4353683]

>“I knew that women speak to one another differently in rooms without men,” moderator Dayna Tortorici writes. “Not better, not more honestly, not more or less intelligently—just differently, and in a way one doesn’t see portrayed as often as one might like.”

Write this! Why the fuck arent women writers expressing just this?? A brand new secret club house of narrative and style that HALF THE WORLD knows about but is never talked about?

And when its brought up, its just described as "differently"? Jesus fucking christ, learn how to write.

Seriously, this shit would cook money and still have time to get the kids ready for school.

[Anonymous No.4353696]

>>4353530
>"...I cannot read another passage about masturbation. I can’t.' It was like a pile of Kleenex.”

Fucking shoot me /lit/. The storm is coming and I dont want no part in this shit.

[Anonymous No.4353700]

>>4353592
This type of attitude will completely devalue anything a person says in my eyes.

>The main character was such an asshole. The book sucked
>The author is so full of himself!
>I couldn't relate to anyone, nobody had any morals!
Just die already.

[Anonymous No.4353703]

>>4353696
>>4353700
Both of these are idiotic. DId they put down animal farm because it was unrealistic they couldn't relate to a talking horse?

I literally don't understand this way of reading.

[Anonymous No.4353704]

>>4353683
See, they still want men to do it. The irony is this type of insane psuedofeminist relies on men more than any other modern woman. They need something to bitch about and expect MEN to write these female characters while they avoid pens and typewriters like the plague.

[Anonymous No.4353709]

>>4353703
I do know people in middle school that did that, though that could just be immaturity. My English teacher in grade school was all about fables so I didn't even think twice.

[Anonymous No.4353713]

>>4353683
Because it's not true, it's some made up bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4353714]

>>4353583
I used to think Gould was a cutie after that Cooking the Books episode with Tao Lin.

Oh well.

[Anonymous No.4353715]

>>4353700
Some people think art means 'wish fulfilment' and mainly involves self-insertion. I blame hollywood, YA novels, and western RPGs.
The whole argument of 'group X isn't represented enough' relies on this misconception entirely.

[Anonymous No.4353716]

*scratches neckbeard*

[Anonymous No.4353717]

>>4353577
yeah the only actually great author mentioned was roth and that guy talking about him must be literally retarded

[Anonymous No.4353721]

>>4353713
That women speak amongst themselves differently when men aren't around? Of course they do.

[Anonymous No.4353727]

>>4353703
It seems to me it's an extremely feminine way of relating to ideas and information. The superior empathic powers that women have among real people are hamstrung in the the written medium--the normal sensory cues are removed, and they have no real interpersonal interactions form which to draw meaning.

For at least some women, this must be a deeply disturbing experience. While they can instinctively relate to real people, they may not know how to empathize with fictional characters that don't relate to their own first hand experiences in some way.

[Anonymous No.4353731]

>>4353721
When other guys speak differently with girls around I usually become disgusted and call them out for being fake to get laid. I assume any reasonable female would do the same.

[Anonymous No.4353737]

>>4353683
>mfw Gokujyou is the pioneer for this "trend" and is one of the most retarded anime I've ever seen
Girls are actually pretty gross and annoying.
Take a stroll through /cgl/ any day. I dare you.

[Anonymous No.4353738]

>>4353731
It's not about being fake, it's about etiquette and unconscious ticks. I don't talk about the shape of a girls tits when there's another chick standing next to me.

And it's not even about saying things differently when you're around women, there are just things you choose not to say in their presence.

[Anonymous No.4353739]

/lit/, this is me
>>4353683
>>4353696

Real talk.
I was going through my head about what I just posted about, thinking, why the hell doesnt this make sense? Yeah, these girls and women could just be saying bullshit, or they could not be. So I started to consider, what if theyre not. And then this post hit me.

>>4353700
and then this
>>4353703
then this
>>4353715

The reason these posts got to me, is I had a very similar reaction that I think these women are talking about, to Plath's Bell Jar, and I've heard very similar reactions about Austen.

With the Bell Jar, when I read, I just couldnt empathize with the main character. She was shallow as all fuck. All she cared about was her image, her clothing, and her social position, and nothing else. This really made me hate her and the book, and for a while I wondered why people considered Bell Jar the female version of Catcher in the Rye.

Are my reasons for disliking Bell Jar the same as what these women are talking about? I mean, I've never read Post Office so I cant be sure of what they are talking about, but I can figure it out. I mean I like a lot of literature that has deplorable characters, even female, like Dostoyevsky's Natalia in The Prince. Grade A bitch, grade A character. But I mean, am I still the same as these girls?

Im sincerely curious.

[Anonymous No.4353741]

>>4353700
Nah. If a character is totally obnoxious and portrayed by the author as holier than Mohammed, that seems reasonable, like any of Ayn Rand's books. Or if the character is a dickhead and the majority of the book is spent following said dickhead, for example catcher in the rye.

As long as they are basing their judgement on the text itself, you'll have to live with their opinion.

[Anonymous No.4353743]

>>4353739
the bell jar? maybe not. jane austen? yes.

[Anonymous No.4353750]

>>4353741
As far as Ayn Rand goes, her books are merely vessels for her retarded philosophy. That philosophy is what people take issue with, and the character just happens to hold that philosophy.

Catcher in the Rye is another matter, and I think it's retarded to not like the book for the characters personality, in this case particular.

[Anonymous No.4353751]

>>4353738
I don't say those things if a girls around or not, so I cant relate.

[Anonymous No.4353753]

>>4353739
>With the Bell Jar, when I read, I just couldnt empathize with the main character. She was shallow as all fuck. All she cared about was her image, her clothing, and her social position, and nothing else.

Are you sure you can read?

[Anonymous No.4353755]

>>4353743
Ok, so what did you get out of The Bell Jar?

Besides when she was in the asylum, the book did nothing for me. The writing style wasnt bad but it wasnt great, the subject matter was basic but thats fine, but, that fucking main character.

At least with Holden in Catcher, I could understand what he cared about even if I didnt like HOW he cared about it. Yeah, hes a whiny little fuck, but he still cares about something important, and god damnit if he isnt honest about it.

With The Bell Jar, she cares about something really shallow and she cares about that thing in a really shallow way.

I dont get it, man.

[Anonymous No.4353756]

>>4353751
That's fine but you realize you're in the minority correct?

There was a show on MTV that tons of girls watched and it was basically like this. They talked about dicks and dick shapes and other shit like that.

[Anonymous No.4353758]

i higgity hope that one diggity day wiggity western women will be able to iggity overcome their kiggity collective victim complex

[Anonymous No.4353759]

>>4353753
Yeah I know, try to look past that

[Anonymous No.4353760]

women ruin everything

/thread

[Anonymous No.4353761]

>>4353738
I don't talk about such things whether a girls around or not, so I can't relate.

[Anonymous No.4353765]

>>4353750
Point stands that there's nothing unjustified about disliking a book because you didn't like the characters in it.

[Anonymous No.4353767]

>>4353761
I got you the first time.

Anyway, it was just an example, the most obvious one.

[Anonymous No.4353772]

>>4353751
>>4353761
>tfw i can describe any girl's shape objectively while making it sound good but never do because i think it's appropiate
spagett.tiff

[Anonymous No.4353776]

>>4353649
>>4353612
>>4353577


You're misreading the jam session thing though, it's not about blaming the dudes for doing it, it's the women realizing how stupid they were for sitting through them passively.

[Anonymous No.4353777]

>>4353765
>>4353750


What do you think about this then?
>>4353755

[Anonymous No.4353778]

>>4353765
Except there was no point.

[Anonymous No.4353779]

>>4353765
no diggity niggity

[Anonymous No.4353781]

>>4353777
I just try to understand the character. That doesn't mean I have to agree or relate to them. If a character only cares about shallow things and appearances, then fine, that how that character is. I've never held a negative opinion about a book because I didn't like the character, ever.

[Anonymous No.4353783]

>>4353696
fuck yes ass hamburger

[Anonymous No.4353785]

>>4353577
> also, isn't the idea that you need to relate to the character of your gender in a book kind of stupid? why can't you relate to the male just because you identify as female?

whered you get that from this? The whole point of this was that women were relating to books until the authors started being misogynistic (bukowski talking about ugly legs for example)

bukowski really did hate women and implying its not harder to identify with his works because of that fact is just wrong

that said, I never read his books and identified with anyone within so whatever

[Anonymous No.4353787]

>>4353755
no i meant the opposite. the bell jar, maybe it doesn't have anything you're really missing out on. jane austen, if you don't like her, does. she's a wonderful writer

[Anonymous No.4353788]

>>4353781
I should specify something. When I say "I didn't like the character", I mean in the sense of their personality. You're perfectly justified for thinking a character is terribly written, as long as you have some argument for it. A lot of times people misunderstand characters or take their facade as their real personality. TV usually makes facades incredibly obvious so people aren't used to have to dig a little deeper and maybe hold suspicions.

[Anonymous No.4353789]

>>4353739
I'd say its similar, but not entirely. Ive never read bell jar, but Thats a very old school stereotypical depiction of a woman you describe, and im not sure that the women in the article are complaining if male characters in a similar vein, like say, Conan the barbarian (not to diss those awesome stories, but I can see how a female would get bored with it and probably dislike conan entirely).

[Anonymous No.4353792]

>>4353781
Thats not what im saying.

Im asking you, have you read The Bell Jar, and if you have what did you get out of it?

I mean what good is a story if there is only one fleshed out character who only think and does shallow things, and then the book is presented not as a satire or as a surprising reflection of humanity?

I mean, the girl just goes from shallow, break down about shallow, to being shallow again. The character really didnt go through a strong development, or at least wasnt given enough room at the end of the work to show how she had changed

[Anonymous No.4353793]

>>4353696
Are you implying women should understand what it's like to be a pubescent boy? Obviously they can't.

That said it's not a fault of the book, really

[Anonymous No.4353797]

>>4353785
if you can't higgity handle a miggity male expressing his honest thiggity thoughts on love siggity sexuality woman and siggity so on you shouldn't riggity read his books
why do wiggity women think that thiggity they have the riggity right to liggity limit male discourse?

[Anonymous No.4353803]

>>4353787
Oh I see what you mean
God damn it I really need to get around to reading Austen already

I heard a lot of her work is just women gossiping and that really put me off

[Anonymous No.4353804]

>>4353792
I never read it so I can't say anything beyond that.

But I also don't really get the same desire to see characters "change". PTA's The Master got a lot of flack from people because Phoenix's character didn't change, and I couldn't really see where they were coming from.

Maybe Plath is making a statement on something by creating a character with a shallow personality that doesn't develop.

Again I haven't read, so I won't really go further, at the risk of blathering on ignorantly.

[Anonymous No.4353805]

>>4353778

Point was this view is dumb:
>If you disliked the book because you disliked the characters your views are worthless

People can dislike something for whatever reason they want, as long as it relates to the work itself. Subjectivity of opinions etc

[Anonymous No.4353809]

>>4353715
WRPG's could seriously do with more blame being piled on them.

[Anonymous No.4353812]

>>4353805
wiggity what exactly is your iggity issue with piggity people dislike a wiggity work for reasons not relating to the wiggity work itself?

[Anonymous No.4353814]

>>4353793
Obviously they can and do. Girls also go through puberty and though there are a lot of differences between the two there are also a lot of similarities.

If I read a book about a 12 year old girl freaking out over her first period im not going to through the book against the wall screaming about how I dont get it.

[Anonymous No.4353816]

>>4353803
There's a lot of wit and banter in it that slip past even the women who claim to like her. They get hung up on the romances.

>>4353805
Sure they can, but don't expect me to take anything they say seriously if they can't even get past a character that they don't "relate" to take in what the rest of the book has to offer.

[Anonymous No.4353817]

>>4353814
apparently riggity rationality is niggity not something to be expected from figgity female literature critics

[Anonymous No.4353818]

>>4353682
Same.
I read that article and I'm so upset because of this reason.
They are no different than the republicans wanting to censors.

[Anonymous No.4353821]

>>4353804
>Maybe Plath is making a statement on something by creating a character with a shallow personality that doesn't develop.

/lit/, was that the point of the book?

What the fuck was the point of that book.

[Anonymous No.4353825]

Characters are feeble constructs, like the author, like the human soul.

[Anonymous No.4353826]

>>4353818
Who said they were different? This article is about womyn though. If you want to talk about 'republicans', make a thread about republicans.

>>4353821
>implying art has to have a point

[Anonymous No.4353830]

>>4353826
>implying...

Calm yourself, im just asking peeps what they thought about the book.

All is good.

[Anonymous No.4353832]

>>4353785
How does admitting the existence of ugly legs = misogyny? And did he say that or one of his characters?

[Anonymous No.4353836]

>>4353793
I can understand what is like to be a woman when I read a book about a woman doing woman things, why can't they understand what is like to be a pubescent boy?

[Anonymous No.4353838]

>>4353696
There they go again, women being prudes and pretending they don't masturbate.

[Anonymous No.4353839]

>>4353816
>Character goes against readers strongly held beliefs and is depicted as righteous
>Characters personality is strongly unappealing to the reader and the book is highly focused on them
Can you see how this may not be a case of the reader being oversensitive?

>If someone has one view I disagree with, I will not take anything they say seriously
You'll miss out on a lot.

[Anonymous No.4353841]

>>4353530
sluts and fine literature don't mix

[Anonymous No.4353852]

>>4353839
>Character goes against readers strongly held beliefs and is depicted as righteous
>Characters personality is strongly unappealing to the reader and the book is highly focused on them
Can you see how this may not be a case of the reader being oversensitive?

Do you think the bell jar falls under this?

I hate repeating myself on this but god damn it, this books erks the shit out of me

[Anonymous No.4353853]

>>4353839
>Can you see how this may not be a case of the reader being oversensitive?
Of course. I'm able to separate myself and I don't expect a writer to appeal to my sensibilities.

>You'll miss out on a lot.
When that one view is this retarded, I'm willing to take the risk.

[Anonymous No.4353854]

>>4353839
>>If someone has one view I disagree with, I will not take anything they say seriously
>You'll miss out on a lot.
Not him, and it's different than that.

One can have an opinion based on whatever they chose to, but if I go and tell you something retarded like I didn't liked the Bell Jar because I thought Esther wouldn't get along with my pony OC, would you still take my opinion seriously?

[Anonymous No.4353861]

>>4353852
i'm also riggity regularly iggity erked while reading biggity boks

[Anonymous No.4353862]

>>4353812
If your opinion on a work is formed wholly by things outside the work, then you aren't really criticizing the work itself.

If you say book x is terrible without ever having read it, and you have to read a book to form an opinion on the value of it, your opinion is baseless.

[Anonymous No.4353866]

>>4353862
so wiggity what? for all that you niggity know, the critic could higgity have an intelligent criticism of the wiggity work while miggity misrepresenting his thoughts

[Anonymous No.4353867]

>>4353814
if I read enough of that I would be tired of it

>>4353817
shut up

[Anonymous No.4353870]

>>4353866
can you stop doing that? it's really, really stupid

[Anonymous No.4353872]

>>4353867
if you've niggity not any intelligent kiggity comments to make, i siggity suggest you exit this thread

[Anonymous No.4353873]

There will always be a rather cunning contingency of feminists who simply don't want men to be men.

They'd much rather men be some composite they deem agreeable.

They take notions heavily ingrained in the cultural and social orders of the world like the female sense of the maternal, and every poetic notion that goes with it, as a quality uniquely feminine.

As well they should, but any male abstraction of honour or conquest and the poetics therein that have been written about by male authors are seem as frustrations to be relentlessly needled at and whittled down.

You can't have it both ways. You can't venerate the historical qualities of the feminine in art while decrying the historical qualities of the masculine.

[Anonymous No.4353874]

>>4353854
An opinion is just your thoughts on the book. If genuinely didn't enjoy the book because StarShine or whatever couldn't shit in his diaper comfortably with Esther around, then you're a pretty weird person. It's not a criticism that others would share. But it's still your genuine opinion.

[Anonymous No.4353875]

>>4353870
i've giggity got a spiggity speech impediment. chiggity check your privilege, mec

[Anonymous No.4353876]

>>4353872
intelligent comments like "apparently rationality is not something to be expected from female literature critics"?

That sort of contribution? Because if so, goodbye.

[Anonymous No.4353881]

>>4353874
>An opinion is just your thoughts on the book.
Obviously, and I implied that on my post; however, would you still take that opinion seriously?

[Anonymous No.4353885]

>>4353866
If you define a legit opinion on a work as one that is formed by actually reading the work in question, then whether you can fluke upon an intelligent criticism of said just by chance is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4353887]

>>4353876
>because if so, goodbye
Female detected, no one with a penis would say something like that. Cool that butthurt.

[Anonymous No.4353888]

>>4353887
>tfw circumsized

[Anonymous No.4353890]

>>4353765
You are making a categorical confusion
The problem with people that say "I don't like the character, he was an asshole" is that they are making a moral judgment when they should have made an aesthetic judgment.

[Anonymous No.4353892]

>>4353881
What do you mean by take it seriously.

It wouldn't change my opinions on the work. But I'd take it seriously inasmuch as accepting that some people have such opinions. I'm sure people do.

[Anonymous No.4353893]

>>4353888
if you're a male and you kiggity comport yourself like thiggity that i would biggity bet that you are often and chronically siggity sexually frustrated

[Anonymous No.4353894]

>>4353887
>neckbeard detected

[Anonymous No.4353896]

>>4353890
>moral judgements don't influence aesthetic judgements for some people
lel

[Anonymous No.4353899]

>>4353826
because the event was organized by n+1 who notoriously considers itself leftist?

[Anonymous No.4353901]

>>4353893
Stop typing like a faggot please.

[Anonymous No.4353902]

>>4353888
Shut-up anon. No one cares about male genitalia getting mutilated.

If it's some young woman in Somalia though stop the fucking presses.

[Anonymous No.4353903]

>>4353836
>gais i read pride and prejudice once!!1! i know dem females

[Anonymous No.4353909]

>>4353896
I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying that when they do it they are confusing categories and mistaken.

I believe that the confusion between ethics and aesthetics comes from a poorly developed aesthetic sense.

[Anonymous No.4353910]

>>4353892
>What do you mean by take it seriously.
If you would take a ridiculous opinion in consideration just because people are entitled to their opinion.
I always look at the reasons people have to hold an opinion with more attention than the opinions themselves, and then only if those have a sound logic behind them I take them seriously.

I can still tolerate opinions without a decent background, but I'm not going to take them seriously on a serious discussion like the one on the OP's link.

Those women think they are giving an opinion that matters when they say that they can't enjoy stories that don't directly pander to them while growing an arm to pat them in the back while they read.
They can have their opinion, but that's all their opinion can amount to.

[Anonymous No.4353911]

>>4353696
Is there that much jerking off in the canon? I can't think of any examples...

[Anonymous No.4353912]

>>4353894
Broken detector detected
Maybe if we shitpost enough this shitty thread will get deleted.

[Anonymous No.4353915]

>>4353902
>FGM is the same as circumcision
>h-here i go!

[Anonymous No.4353917]

>>4353903
>implying pride and prejudice has realistic women
Literally, cool your tits.

[Anonymous No.4353921]

i'm gonna siggity say this wiggity once: if you've got an iggity issue with my diggity disorder i siggity suggest you get some sensitivity training. fucking siggity cis scum

[Anonymous No.4353923]

>>4353915
And its different how, pray tell? My botched circumcism makes my dick oddly curved when I get a boner, make sex painful.

[Anonymous No.4353926]

>>4353917
>implying that was the implication
don't get your penis in a knot or is that not a concern for you

[Anonymous No.4353928]

>>4353923
bahahahhahaha
faggot

[Anonymous No.4353929]

Guys, please don't bully Bill Cosby.

[Anonymous No.4353932]

>>4353915
Don't make me dump my infographs woman/faggot.

[Anonymous No.4353934]

>>4353909
>be a nigger
>book depicts a mutilated nigger getting shot for unjust reasons
>don't really like the book much, leaves a bad taste in mouth

Let's take it further
>be a nigger
>film shows highly detailed scenes of black people getting raped, tortured, humiliated
>film portrays aggressors as morally justified

Are you really going to say that this viewers take on the aesthetics of the film is unjustified? Our aesthetic sense permits just about any input, including moral. Imagine saying you couldn't dislike a book for plot holes because you were confusing epistemology for aesthetics, or you couldn't like a book because some aspect reminded you of childhood because you were confusing the experiential with the aesthetic. Such things form our aesthetic judgement.

[Anonymous No.4353935]

>>4353929
I thought he was that meme guy from seinfeld

[Anonymous No.4353939]

>>4353934
>impying the goal of art is to make you feel good
Entitled

[Anonymous No.4353947]

>>4353738
Sometimes I overhear my boss talking to her daughter on the phone. Stuff like "i feel so sick, my period has been really bad" and endless vitriol, bitching about everything under the sun. I guess that's what she means.

[Anonymous No.4353959]

>>4353934
Again that would be a very poor judgment. There is many books that have people being mutilated and yet are aesthetically exceptionally.

Take Littell's the Kindly Ones. It is written from the point of view of an unrepentant morally disgusting SS officer. My family personally has suffered greatly under fascism in Italy. Yet that is a spectacular book.

Even disliking a book for plot holes again is a sign of confusion.

In fact those two are the complains of two type of aesthetically challenged people: the moralist and the rationalist.

What those two type of people fail or do not want to understand about aesthetics is its connection with evil and with uselessness. Because of that they fail to understand works of art until they receive them anesthetized.

Again I don't think that ethics and epistemology go into our aesthetic judgment. I think that those are called into question when aesthetic judgment is too weak as a support to it.

It is the bad critic, the bad appreciator of art, that discusses the plot.
In fact James Wood, who is an excellent aesthete, has admitted of willingly spoiling plot points in his reviews because he doesn't care about it.

[Anonymous No.4353963]

>>4353947
Exactly. For women, gossip in general is something they generally don't partake in around men.

[Anonymous No.4353966]

>>4353939
>arts purpose isn't to make you feel good
>hence your opinion on an art that gives you bad feelings is unjustified if you let your bad feelings influence it

No. An opinion that comes from outrage or disgust can still be a legitimate opinion.

[Anonymous No.4353968]

>>4353939
What's entitlement is that you expect everyone else to relate to and excuse the general shittiness you'll find in white male literature.

[Anonymous No.4353975]

>>4353966
Yeah and not all opinions are equal.
That would be the opinion of an ignorant moralist.

[Anonymous No.4353978]

>>4353959
Well put. Best post on /lit/ right now.

[Anonymous No.4353980]

Since we are already over the whole opinions shit.
I hated this fucking book for the inane plot and them, and its shitty, annoying characters although I did liked the way it was written until that pathetic description of London.
What does that mean?

>>4353968
>>4353966
lel

[Anonymous No.4353984]

>>4353980
>inane plot and theme
fug

[Anonymous No.4353990]

>>4353968
Literature is not about relating. Only dumb asses think that it's about relating and caring. This is some shitty trend that has sparked in the 80s when literature departments where risking to be defunded because they weren't making enough money for the universities. So professors went "listen guys, literature is important because it makes you care about other and makes you more moral."
Then the college kids studying English learned this bullshit, they went on to get an internship on buzzfeed and the millions and every fucking review is about "relating" and "caring" and liking the characters.

But really, that's the most terrible and dumb understanding of literature, a fantasy of literature.

[Anonymous No.4354003]

>>4353990
What's literature about then?
I'm legitimately curious because I'm starting to get fed up with avoiding annoying, shifty characters even if those are all I seem to imagine.

[Anonymous No.4354004]

> These writers are celebrated by the society that we live in, even the one who stabbed his wife.
FFS we don't celebrate the authors themselves we celebrate their fucking works

[Anonymous No.4354013]

>>4354004
A sign of the pleb is an inability to separate an artist from his work.

>Like I wanna read a book by a rapist!
>LIke I wanna watch a movie with a murderer!
>Like I wanna listen to a song by a pedophile!

[Anonymous No.4354018]

Women don't even surprise me anymore. How much of an insufferable cunt do you have to be to write, or even think that.

Sometimes women make me want to be violent when this absolute filth is written. I can't even believe this was allowed to be published.


> I was just like: 'Fuck. You.' I was probably 15 or 16. And over the coming years I realized that it was this canonical work, so I tried to return to it, but every time I was just like, 'Fuck you.'

Yeah a 16 year old. Real rational, cunt. Muh feeling, you aren't catering to me.
C-censor b-books that h-hurt my f-f-f-feelings.
How dumb can humans be. How dumb can the person who allowed that article to be published. It is your own fault for thinking you are a fucking fictional character and the nerve, the absolute audacity to say it isn't worth reading or that Hemingway is bad simply because it doesn't throw your narrative at you is ok. Jesus christ. Sure there is a lot of lit with males etc, but holy fuck to attack literature because mostly males write and from likely their own perspective? If women weren't such insufferable cunts for the most part, most of the time, in America men would actually treat them well. Let them go on social networks and have petty fights, whores themselves out for likes, and bask in the attention they get from thousands of men desperate just to be noticed by them.

I don understand women suffrage. How can they make these complaints, these demands, and accusations, while championing their base ideology. The base of their ideology is an image forgotten, for a militant, exploitative, pseudo takeover through legal channels and government political correctness in an effort to please.

[Anonymous No.4354022]

>>4353910
>Someone getting angry that a character wouldn't relate to their fetish cartoon fanfiction creation is equivalent to some minority of women being irritated by Bukowski's apparent dislike of women

Not really the same thing.

Flip things around: If a female author was a misandrist and it came out in her book, and a decent group of men dislike the book because of it, would you still say that
>these opinions don't really matter, and are just a result of men being unable to enjoy stories that don't directly pander to them

[Anonymous No.4354024]

>>4354013
I don't want to listen to a song by a pedophile though

not THAT pedophile anyway

[Anonymous No.4354025]

>>4353975
What makes a 'good' opinion?

[Anonymous No.4354031]

>>4354003
It is about beauty.
But don't misunderstand beauty as prettiness: well crafted sentences about pastoral scenes.

Beauty can be terrible, enormous, destructive, terrifying. Beauty is what is in the world more than the world. That is beauty is in itself a sentence on the world as insufficient.

That is what literature, like every art, should pursue. If you are interested I can explain why the formal qualities of beauty are connected to that aspect.

[Anonymous No.4354032]

>>4354024
pleb. Pedophiles know that true love exists despite the furious outcry of society. It's the modern day master/servant relationship.

[Anonymous No.4354034]

>>4354018
so much buttmad

[Anonymous No.4354035]

>>4354024
Not liking Micheal Jackson.

[Anonymous No.4354041]

>>4354022
If a woman was a great writer and was a misandrist I would still defend her work and call those men plebs.

Heck Marguerite Duras borders on misandrism and I love it. Genet advocates rape of straight men and I fucking worship his books like there is no tomorrow. Even Burroughs is ok in my book and again he advocates rape of straight men.

[Anonymous No.4354043]

>>4354031
Please do, if it's not much trouble.

>>4354022
It is the same thing, though.
They are still basing their opinions of muh feelings and nothing else, both cases are exerting the lowest possible appreciation of a work.

[Anonymous No.4354044]

Is this the misogyny general?

There is one thing about young women that particularly bothers me. Why is it in any way acceptable to be essentially an adult and have "lol netflix" as your only interest whatsoever. What sort of habits substantiate such a banal life that your only source of intellectual stimulation is nothing more than being a couch potato. Why is this acceptable whereas watching cable is not?

[Anonymous No.4354045]

>>4354025
An opinion that is informed, rational and defensible.

That excludes any opinion that defends itself by saying "well that's my opinion."

[Anonymous No.4354047]

>>4354022
Shit, I forgot.

>If a female author was a misandrist and it came out in her book, and a decent group of men dislike the book because of it, would you still say that
Admittedly, I'd be annoyed but I still would shit on her work because of something that minimal.

[Anonymous No.4354049]

>>4354044
coach potato and lying in bed reading are pretty much the same level of loser

[Anonymous No.4354059]

>>4354049

[Anonymous No.4354066]

>>4354047
>I still wouldn't shit on her work because of something that minimal.
I need sleep.

[Anonymous No.4354067]

>>4354047
>>4354022
A good read, is a good read. I don't read books and think about social justice. Dear God, these cunts can let nothing get by them.

How are you going to not appreciate literature because you don't agree with the narrative or the characters choices. Women want to live in an awful boring world. The order is chaos and it will remain that way.

[Anonymous No.4354069]

> Greif was upset that he was promised a male narrative that didn?t pan out
well guess what greif MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE SUCH A LITERAL ASPIE ABOUT LITERATURE
Good writers write what they want to read not what makes other people a century later happy

[Anonymous No.4354072]

>>4354044
Because those people probably work manual labor jobs 12 hours a day , spend 6 hours unwinding and 6 hours sleeping. The working person does not have the time to invest in much art beyond tv and movies, which in turn dumbs them down over the years whether they like it or not. Sounds like you need to check your middle class privilege.

[Anonymous No.4354078]

>>4354045
And what is uninformed, irrational, or indefensible about disliking something because you found it morally offensive?

Keep in mind that an opinion isn't a wholesale analysis of a book, it is your personal reaction to the book.

[Anonymous No.4354081]

>>4354043
Not too much trouble. But I don't have much time. So I'll concentrate on literature.
So the question is how the formal traits are connected to beauty.

In the previous post we have seen that beauty is a particular experience made by the reader. It is an experience of the insufficiency of the world. The work of literature, especially in prose, works the reader by depicting an aporia at the heart of the world. That is the idea of an ideal situation while confirming its impossibility.
Take for example Stendhal's the Red and the Black. At the center there is the need for Sorel to be a men of action and at the same time the impossibility of acting in the france of the reconstruction.

Similarly in Proust it's all about this hunch about what happiness is, this truth that cannot be remember but seems always at hand, and how in fact it is impossible.

To achieve this effect the writer has to give a hunch of this ideality through the materiality itself of language. And each writer does it accordingly to his sensibility and abilities.
Hemingway, for example, removed and removed to achieve his ideal of an empty and well lit room. Gaddis instead approaches the ideal like the flemmish paintings, detailing the tragedy of each single object under the gaze of God.
The library of Babel is the ideal of Borges, and the Castle that of Kafka.

The difference between morality, which deals with the ought and the is distinction too, is that aesthetics knows that that ideal space can only come with either the destruction of our present or with its appearance reversed.
The cliche` is the ideal lover who turns out to be a killer.

[Anonymous No.4354085]

>>4354044
>Why is this acceptable whereas watching cable is not?
Illusion of choice making it seem like more than passive media consumption, I'm guessing.

You make a good point though. People don't watch movies anymore, they watch netflix. I get DVD's in the mail, but whenever somewhat invites me over to watch a movie, it's never something they specifically picked out and want to share, it's always "Whatever's on netflix."

[Anonymous No.4354086]

>>4354072
Except that is not what I wrote at all you retard. "Young women" were the subject of the statement. As in, unemployed girls still in education of roughly university age. They have almost limitless free time and certainly don't work manual labor jobs.

I will cede the point that I was gravely mistaken in trying to even have a 'scribble on the bathroom stall'-tier discussion in this festering shitpit.

tl;dr - You can't read. I'm not surprised you congregate here.

[Anonymous No.4354091]

>>4354072
Are you seriously that narrow minded? You clearly do not work a manual labor job, and I do.

I don't need six hours to unwind and neither did the billions of people for all of human civilization.

[Anonymous No.4354093]

>>4354078
Well.
1) Morality is not rational. I subscribe to the error theory and believe that there are no moral facts. Since there are no moral facts there is no rational morality. It's all self-interest and gut feeling.

2) You are misunderstanding a work of art because you are applying the wrong category. Complaining that it is not compatible with your morality it mean misunderstanding its end. It's like saying "wow this toaster sucks, it does not play dvds" "toaster ovens are not supposed to play dvd" "whatever it's my opinion."

[Anonymous No.4354101]

>>4354091
you're stupid. there's a reason why working class men are stupid drunks in their spare time and not autodidactic intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.4354103]

>>4354018
Cool your jets m8. You sound like youve had some unpleasant experiences with women in the past, but try not to let that become prejudice. In regards to the article, yeah it's dumb and yeah it's all the rage atm. But it'll die off soon enough. This kind of college feminism rests on the idea that men and women are the same and any differences between the two are the result of discrimination/misogyny/the western literary canon. Its a view that'll get harder to defend however, as time and psychological measurement progresses - i.e. see http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently

[Anonymous No.4354108]

>>4354044
I agree that netflix is garbage, but at least you don't have to sit through commercials. Not that this makes netflix a worthwhile 'hobby', I still pirate my films and television shows, but it's certaintly better than watching 18 minutes of soulless advertising along with your 42 minute period drama.

[Anonymous No.4354114]

>>4354103
where does the original article state that men and women are the same?

[Anonymous No.4354120]

>>4354085
I think it's because the act of being with somebody else alone is all we need to seek enjoyment. The actual novelty of most entertainment has basically worn off yet the implications (there's a better word for that I know) remain, so that we're going through the motions of watching a movie while really enjoying the company of each other, almost like an excuse.

[Anonymous No.4354123]

>>4354101
Or maybe I just do it so that I can pay for my education?
Dat projection. Sorry that I choose to learn a trade and get a ph.d

[Anonymous No.4354124]

>>4354101
Go back to your church, Malthus ! You are clearly drunk.

[Anonymous No.4354125]

>>4354114
it doesnt. but its a tenet of most feminist ideology

[Anonymous No.4354131]

>>4354103
too bad that study doesn't doesn't discount or control for cultural influences or you might have had a point. womp womp

[Anonymous No.4354160]

>>4353959
>Aesthetic judgements should not be influenced by epistemological or moral ones

>if a book made absolutely no sense whatsoever, characters have bizarre motivations, things happen for no reason, a person who didn't like it because of this would be unjustified in having this opinion
>you like how true the things the book is saying seems to be, how realistic it is, it conforms with your view of reality, you are unjustified in liking the book
>a book with extended passages about all the white men being graphically murdered, your dislike of it is unjustified because you are a white man
>a book features an upstanding guy, you enjoy how this character reflects your own views on right action, thus your like for the book is unjustified.

Please tell me why an individuals opinion should not be influenced by what makes sense to them, or seems just to them. Because it sounds inane.

[Anonymous No.4354168]

>>4354120
People like that have no business pretending to watch movies and contributing to the decay of cinema.

[Anonymous No.4354181]

>>4354103
>http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently
>The maps give scientists a more complete picture of what counts as normal for each sex at various ages. Armed with the maps, they hope to learn more about whether abnormalities in brain connectivity affect brain disorders such as schizophrenia and depression.

Someone, please tell me how the FUCK judging "normal" behavior is of concern to science. Arrogant motherfuckers overstepping their discourse.

Collect data, faggots. That's all we asked you to do.

[Anonymous No.4354200]

>>4354181
Does this not concern anyone else? It really bothers me how scientists claim to be "objective," but let something as flimsy as social norms impact how they interpret data.

[Anonymous No.4354218]

>>4354081
Any recommended books on the subject of which you speak?

[Anonymous No.4354224]

>>4354181
>Someone, please tell me how the FUCK judging "normal" behavior is of concern to science
Because knowing the difference between men and women can lead to more accurate diagnostic models for disease.
What's normal in a male brain may be abnormal in a female brain, and vice versa. This happens all the time, studies are done all the time on men only and it isn't until later that we realize there are substantial differences between sexes that, for example, decreases the effectiveness of a drug in women.

[Anonymous No.4354227]

>>4354181

Normal is data, how stupid can you be?

[Anonymous No.4354233]

>>4354081
Thanks, man.

I've been trying to write lately and all the advice online was starting to rub me off the wrong way.

[Anonymous No.4354234]

>>4354181
>Collect data, faggots. That's all we asked you to do.
Be careful what you wish for.

[Anonymous No.4354281]

>>4354181
>>4354200
The word 'normal' in psychology and psychiatry refers to behaviour that is healthy/not detrimental to the health of the average individual and functional/doesn't impede the functioning of the average individual.

Psychologists do not define what normal is according to some philosophical predilection - normal is just the statistical term for average

[Anonymous No.4354291]

>>4354093

1) >Morality is not rational, therefore a response to art based on moral offense is irrational
The concept of taste being rational is dumb to begin with. Is enjoyment of an apple in accordance with reason and logic? If you truly enjoy Justin Beiber are you being irrational? If seeing a comedy of jews being gassed offends you, is your dislike of it against reason and logic?

Besides that, you can be a nihilist and dislike a snuff film featuring your mom because it horrifies you. The irrationality of morality doesn't mean offense at art is 'irrational'

2) >Arts purpose is not to reinforce your morality, saying you dislike art because you were morally offended by it is like saying a toaster doesn't play DVDs.
Those aren't remotely similar. Dostoyevsky's Christian moralizing may legit turn you off his works because you don't believe he's right, how difficult is this to see?

A black person disliking a slideshow of KKK lynchings seems perfectly defensible.

[Anonymous No.4354298]

>>4354086
>implying many many young men are not the same exact way
Get back to >>>/r9k/ and take your assravage with you

[Anonymous No.4354303]

>>4354291
How is it defensible? I have to learn about the history of my ancestors committing atoricities, being on the main stage for horrors etc.

Should I dislike or protest history because I don't like it's realities.

Images aren't offensive, images shown for purpose to offend, are offensive.

[Anonymous No.4354305]

>>4353577
They should have read some Celine then.

[Anonymous No.4354313]

>>4354091
Actually, I did for a long time, and even if 6 hours was an overstatement, they still have lots of shit to do in that small amount of free time. Not much time for books. Don't dodge my point. Try a mans job and not pushing carts at walmart and tell me you aren't fucking exhausted afterward. Shit is designed this way in murrica to keep the population to tired and dull to ight back against corporate bullshit. This isn't France with a 30 hour work week.

[Anonymous No.4354323]

>>4354303
>How is it defensible to not like a slideshow of lynchings as a black person
He found such images appalling; he did not enjoy the images. He disliked them.

>Should I dislike history because I don't like its realities
Are you saying you are completely at ease with every act in history? History is fucked man.

[Anonymous No.4354325]

>>4354313
Again projecting that I work at walmart pushing carts. Didn't you read that I learned a trade?

My job is exhausting, but I go on and I'm clearly on lit because I read, and often. Just because most people are weak willed doesn't mean it is impossible. It isn't my fault most Americans are to lazy to do something.

My grandfather worked 3 jobs so that he could raise his family and buy a house, all while being extremely well read, raising his kids, and taking care of is mother. People aren't politically active in the right way for a few reasons

>Media confusion/political spin
>poor sense of community in an individualistic culture
>greed/get mine culture
>worry over responsibilities
>most jobs are big business and they don't tolerate that.

I agree with you to an extent that companies like that are the perpetrators of the problem and keep their workers down, but it is more complicated than that. The combination of technological distraction, rampant sex culture, and laziness have taken over the spirit of Americans.

Our values have turned to ashes in just two generations.

[Anonymous No.4354333]

>>4354091
His point was that there are cultural and psychological reasons why art has become mostly a past time of the upper classes. Mainly School (in the usa) being oppressive indoctrination that gives people from poorer backgrounds a nasty taste in their mouths when they think of anything academic. In addition, the entertainment they do consume from a very early age advocates spending their free time partying and whatnot. Too mentally and physically exhausted from their dull work to think of anything but escaping their reality with drugs such as alcohol.
Some people are just programmed that way, especially when rural and inner city females are still programmed to be superficial and live their lives around men while simultaneously abusing the advantages feminism has brought them. They can still have the best of both worlds and the hedonistic culture around them encourages them to do so, whatever morals and common sense might say.

[Anonymous No.4354353]

>>4354325
>implying you havent projected yourself that I have no experiences like you just because I don't share your opinion.
>implying im not throwing in stuff like the walmart comment just to rustle your little jimmies
Theres some cognitive dissonance too, you clearly list all the external causes of why people are ignorant, yet still blame them anyway. Childish.
Its a rare occurrence that someone can rise above such a background and environment, people like you and I are just lucky, yet you act like you've accomplished something that others are "too lazy" to do.
Without the influence of a few certain people and chance discoveries of a wider world hadn't happened to me i would be an ignorant bud-light chugging redneck today, and I guarantee that the same can be said of you.

[Anonymous No.4354404]

>>4354224
>Schizophrenia and depression
>Diseases
A lot of assumptions these guys are making, wouldn't you agree?

>>4354227
No, a bell-curve is data. "Normal" is a social construction based on that bell-curve, which should only be concern to social scientists, not people who are working to damage valuable differentiation in neurological structure across populations in the name of that social construction (i.e. neuroscientists and Big Pharma).

>>4354281
Psychiatry and psychology have no place in neuroscience, or any other field of hard science that claims to have an ounce of dignity. They are social sciences. Hard scientific findings should be the groundwork of social sciences, not vis versa.

[Anonymous No.4354431]

>>4354404
>A lot of assumptions these guys are making, wouldn't you agree?
No, I would not.
Please stop talking if you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4354443]

>>4354431
I've been through the mental health system. People there liked to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about too. I'm sure you'll fit right in.

I'd also suggest you read Szasz and Laing, you know, for a conflicting viewpoint the mental health circle-jerk apparently isn't giving you.

[Anonymous No.4354447]

>>4354353
So basically I shouldn't feel good about myself because I tried harder than everyone else.

Sorry, but I am better than most of the drolling fools my age. I actually have a plan, a future which I am planning out and working hard to achieve.

How can you advocate a bunch of lazy fools who give into their every primal instinct. They do nothing, and as a result, nothing happens, and their lives turn out to be nothing.

I guess my point is that at what point do you not say, shit look at all these people actually doing real things, maybe I should do that to. As as a human how can you literally just live as a bystander

>>4354323
Of course I am at ease. Bad people exist, and contextually it wasn't shocking as to why they did so numerously.
Also the point is that being black is not attached to being hung. People have been hung for thousands of years. Blacks always want to feel like these horrible, terribly victimized people, yet they really only got the bare end of slavery.

I'm sure they would take the trans atlantic over Russian Serfdom any day of the week. Histroy is cruel and to everyone. It gets me rustled when people think Europe was this lovely place and so luckily, meanwhile every other year your families home was being burnt to the ground by endless wars and invasion, not to mention all of your children dead or raped.

>>4354333
>Mostly a pass time of the upper class.

wut? I think you've got it backwards. Art is mostly a pass time of the lower class.

Dat reason I hate women btw. It has made them into absolute monsters. It is literally the muh dick culture in one sentence.

[Anonymous No.4354449]

>>4354443
I've read Szasz. Extensively. I've also read (and contributed to) the scientific literature. Maybe you should consider the fact that you don't have the most objective viewpoint. Know that the overwhelming mass of objective scientific evidence does not support your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4354458]

>>4353530
It's not really a condemnation of the canon, just looking at a few female writers experiences with it

>A fat girl gets mad at the way Bukowski describes an ugly woman
>Some girl had a crush on a guy who liked Henry Miller, and felt bad for the disposable women he wrote about

The only hot thing in it is this maybe:
>She later realized “that women who love men are going to have to come to terms with their complicity in their own repression and subjugation, and find ways to address it.

I'm surprised that feminists haven't come up with an alternative canon to all the male novelists that have been enshrined in the 20th Century. Surely there are enough women writers? They just need to rediscover some old works.

[Anonymous No.4354464]

>>4354458
>I'm surprised that feminists haven't come up with an alternative canon
for third-wave feminism, this appears to be tumblr.
not even joking

[Anonymous No.4354465]

>>4354458
>Surely there are enough women writers? They just need to rediscover some old works.


>Women
>Helping themselves
>not piggybacking with the help of good ol white knights

[Anonymous No.4354467]

>>4354449
I have a more objective viewpoint than you of what it's like to be processed by your system.

[Anonymous No.4354470]

>>4354465
This.

>expecting the type of people to bitch about this stuff to actually do anything about it
The chicks that are reading aren't taking part in shitty articles like this.

[Anonymous No.4354475]

>>4354447
>how can you advocate
Its called "playing devils advocate"

[Anonymous No.4354476]

>>4354467
Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the nature of disease.

[Anonymous No.4354478]

>>4354464
I don't think tumblr posts count as novels.

>>4354465
A canon is just a list of good books. I'm sure if feminists feel that the current one underrepresents female voices, a bunch of them across English departments could come together and select the pick of the bunch from history. If it's important enough that it affects up and coming female writers, it's important enough to do something about, no?

Like a /mu/ chart. Essential girlcore sorta thing. I'm sure such a thing exists already, but if it was pushed in the academies maybe there would be less complaints.

[Anonymous No.4354484]

>>4354467
...and if it matters at all, I also suffer from a psychiatric disease. So I'm not as unempathetic as you might think.

[Anonymous No.4354497]

>>4354447
>shit how can you see all doing real things
My whole fucking point was that in my home town in West Virginia NO ONE saw that. I was the only exception I ever knew of, because by chance I wa exposed to books and the non-facebook portions of the internet when I was young. (This was before social networks were a thing, but you see my point)

>art is mostly a pass time of the lower class
Now you're just being delusional. Read this: http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm
The lower class has been severed from art by their circumstances and thats why they despise it and refuse to pay attention to it. You got lucky when you saw that you could be more in the first place, ant later hard work notwithstanding. And I wont even touch that paragraph about you being superior, but suffice to say a. thats purely subjective and b. you came off as a euphoric type jackass.

[Anonymous No.4354502]

>>4354447
And the last paragraph jesus christ many women and feminazis piss me off too but you take it too far and this /v/ tier misogyny belongs on /r9k/

[Anonymous No.4354504]

>>4354478
Sure I think it is important, but my fear as usual is that like with many other areas a full female takeover will occur and equality will be feminized. I just can't stand feminist for the most part because the average feminist is just as stupid in regards to equality as she might claim a man to be.

What often happens is two radicals screaming "I'm a moderate and we want equality" at each other, while backing their remodel team to come in and wipe the floor with the opposite.

Both ends shouts their agenda so loudly that the people with actual solutions are drowned out and mascaraed by both ends.

[Anonymous No.4354510]

>>4354502
>this /v/ tier misogyny belongs on /r9k/
Wouldn't it belong on /v/?

[Anonymous No.4354515]

>>4354404
Neuroscience falls under the umbrella of psychology m8

[Anonymous No.4354516]

>>4354510
Nah that would be off-topic there kinda like that idiots first post about netflix, which is why im pointing out his stupidities until his shitposting ass leaves /lit/

[Anonymous No.4354517]

>>4354515
Incorrect, they are overlapping but not identical.

[Anonymous No.4354525]

>>4354497
Do you know what art is...Television programming is art. shity art for profit, but nevertheless, art


>>4354502
What are you even talking about. Either way trust me, you didn't grow up a poor white kids competing with all the rich ones for girls and all the lations for the poor girls.

If you aren't a model for hedonism in the inner city, you aren't getting women or you might find a rare one, but those bitches are like Charizards in a booster box.

[Anonymous No.4354530]

>>4353583
>Worlds without straight men appealed to me,” Gould says. “I liked the idea that there could be narratives that didn’t operate on the presumption of women’s dependence on men for love, money, and support.” She later realized “that women who love men are going to have to come to terms with their complicity in their own repression and subjugation, and find ways to address it.”
this is why rape exists

[Anonymous No.4354533]

>>4354476
Neither does chemical imbalances.

>>4354484
I don't think you're unempathetic, I just question your semantics.

[Anonymous No.4354538]

>>4354533
Nobody mentioned chemical imbalances.
In fact, the article is about structural differences. In normal people.
And obviously all research should be interpreted with a critical eye and not swallowed without thinking.

[Anonymous No.4354547]

>>4354538
Structural differences will have an impact on how chemical imbalances are interpreted, correct?
>The maps give scientists a more complete picture of what counts as normal for each sex at various ages. Armed with the maps, they hope to learn more about whether abnormalities in brain connectivity affect brain disorders such as schizophrenia and depression.

[Anonymous No.4354550]

>>4354517
I didn't say they were identical.

Neuroscience - i.e. the study of the brain - falls under the wider category of psychology - i.e. the study of the mind and behaviour

[Anonymous No.4354555]

>>4354547
In addition:
>Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related.
I mean, I understand these findings are going to be dumbed down for the general population, and in an effort to attain grant money. I simply defy that judging what is a "disorder" should be of concern to hard science. That's human subjectivity your infringing upon, the last bastion of defense against external reality.

[Anonymous No.4354556]

>>4353915

You deserve to be dissolved in a vat of acid

Or maybe just punched really hard. Either one really

[Anonymous No.4354560]

>>4354525
>you didn't
oh I didn't did I? I grew up in an area with poor white kids in the boonies and really small towns where all the girls AND guys tried to compete for the attention of rich bfs / gfs from the cities while the other kids fucked each other because they had no other choice. I called them all preppy or redneck retards and decided to go out and find people with sense instead of becoming a bitter misogynist who couldn't see life from someone else's shoes. You are exactly the kind of person the other thread about 'youth who hate their generation' is talking about, but with a one-sided /r9k/ bent. There are plenty of sensible women out there and just a many stupid men as women.

[Anonymous No.4354565]

>>4354525
You cant have true art when you are heavily censored and your content is dictated by corporate men in suits, such as in hollywood and tv. Its really entertainment only. Read the article I linked.

[Anonymous No.4354575]

>>4354560
You clearly are not grasping that I already made that clear that there are a lot of douchy guys like that, however more so women because it is obviously easier to be a object of attraction for women than men.


To deny that the douchy women out number the douchy men is planly said, just silly. '

For every 5 douchy girls there are 2 gamers, ..5 douchy wanted men, and 1.5 regular guys with assorted hobbies and interests.

Womens standards overshadow mens. Men want simple things that are easily attainable and fairly simple, where women want success and in our society, success isn't exactly easy by their standards.

You wind up with mos women chassing a few men, and most men chasing most women who don't want them.

[Anonymous No.4354578]

>>4354560
To be frank and add too >>4354575

I don't see why they don't legalize prostitution. It would just legitimize a large amount of womens life styles.I'm not even trying to be offensive either. Women whoring themselves out for benefits is an everyday thing and an unaccounted advantage

[Anonymous No.4354597]

>>4354575
And thats your own life experience, and im telling you that it may be true via the distorted lense called 4chan, but in many cases the so-called "nice guys" you probably hang with are just as shallow as those women and the douchebags on the college football team. You just call it wanting 'simple things' because it corresponds to your own values, unlike women who are shallow in a different way. I was like you once. It took me a long time to see things in an outside perspective. Truth is all people are shitty, but some you can tolerate and usually those people share your gender so you think gender is the reason when thats actually a correlation equals causation logical fallacy.
ive gone really far without calling you sexually frustrated because I feel its usually a cop-out, but it just might be true in your case.

[Anonymous No.4354887]

>>4354575
Bro, you need to check yourself

40% of gamers are girls

Really dude, you need to graduate the 7th grade and reread this

[Anonymous No.4354888]

>>4354887
Correction, 47%.

You need to gain some empathy man. Seriously, no need to be so damn angry. Let some shit go

[Anonymous No.4354984]

>>4354291
1) We are not talking about taste now. We are talking about an opinion on a work of art, and what is a good or bad opinion and I defined the opinion as being informed, rational and defensible. There are no moral facts hence an opinion on morality can't be rational in my opinion.

1-a) If you truly like Justin Bieber and you don't understand what is wrong with you have bad taste.If you don't like Justin Bieber but you can't say anything but "he sucks" you have a bad opinion. You can't control your gut reaction but you can control your understanding of how appropriate it is to the work in question. If someone is listening to Justin Bieber and I complain that there is no drop or guitar solo they are still an idiot.

2) And you would be an idiot to be turned off by it. A good reader first reaction to being put off should be asking himself the question "am I missing something? Why am I being put off by an author who has found some of his most ardent fans in militant atheists? What am I missing?" The point would be to achieve an understanding that manages to comprehend the quality of a work of art independently of our subjective response to it.

Naturally our response is not irrelevant, it's a clue, but a clue to be pursued to understand a bigger picture, to see how it is correct or wrong.

Also: a slideshow of lynching is not a work of art. If it was and that's the only reason they were disliking it they would be wrong. That does not mean they should buy it and watch it every day, it means their comprehension of its quality should come on other basis. And I'm not arguing subservience to the accepted canon, you can very well argue that it is not art, but you cannot do it on moral grounds.

[Anonymous No.4354989]

>>4354578
lel. but bitter virgins like you could get sex more easily if prostitution were legalized and you wouldn't be such a bitter loser

[Anonymous No.4354995]

>>4354160
Because people that judge art by how it confirms their bias or how it makes them feel good confuse the categories and are using it for the wrong reasons.

It's like someone using books to wipe his ass and judging them on the absorption and softness of the paper.

The problem on judging them on realism, makes sense and consistency with moral judgments is:

1) Often what makes sense to you depends on your knowledge of the world. Often something does not make sense to you because of lacks in your culture that once filled would make the work understandable. Many people don't understand Kafka because they have lost knowledge of the early XX century literary culture of the mitteleuropa.

Similarly a reader's idea of reality it is often limited by their lack of experience and culture. A person that grew up in a missouri suburb will have a hard time understanding 1968 Paris unless he took classes in the history of contemporary France. What it is very realistic will seem alien to his limited outlook.

The point is that books should be compared by comparison to other books, and not by how they fit a certain reader's puny mind.

He who judges them on how they reinforce his convictions and meet his standards and needs might as well start wiping his ass with them.

[Anonymous No.4355003]

>>4354218
Read first Kundera's essays on literature.

Then in this order: Bataille (literature and evil), Blanchot, Paul De Man, Adorno (Aesthetics) and last Hegel on Aesthetics.

[GirlJesus !!ggYw9XaQXSW No.4355056]

>>4353739
>Dostoyevsky's Natalia in The Prince
Are you, like, drunk, man? I assume you mean Dostoevsky's The Idiot and Nastasya Filippovna, right?
I found her pretty sympathetic, to be honest, but then I know people who are very similar to her and who I'd all the same call genuine friends, so maybe that's just a difference in, ah, moral outlook?