/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6036434]

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/01/women-are-clever-enough-know-when-art-just-misogyny-disguise

Women are clever enough to know when art is just misogyny in disguise
Misogyny both creates and thrives on women’s intellectual insecurities, implying that dissent merely signifies one’s inability to access a greater, higher truth.

[Anonymous No.6036435]

To state that a work of art or literature is misogynistic is to place oneself on a level with the kind of person who looks at a painting and says “my five-year-old could do that”. It is to single oneself out as the person who doesn’t “get it”. Silly, silly you! You’re not meant to confuse art with real life! Haven’t you grasped that yet? And so it is that rather than look at, say, the work of Allen Jones or the writing of Brett Easton Ellis and conclude that far too much of it incorporates gratuitous misogyny, one is expected to offer a thoughtful, nuanced take on things, demonstrating that even if one feels regret at one’s own flawed response, one nevertheless respects the complex interactions that have taken place between the artist, his oeuvre and the world at large.
For instance, Irvine Welsh has written a piece on why Easton Ellis’s 1991 work American Psycho remains “one of the greatest novels of our time”. I remain unconvinced, but that may be because I’m one of those people who “childishly insist on confusing protagonists with their authors”. Or perhaps I “lack the ability to abstract [myself]” from the violent scenes. Or it could be that I “couldn’t get past [my] own shock and discomfort to ascertain [the book’s] true nature”. Sad to say, I just don’t know. Certainly I can admire the slickness of the work, the repetition, the satire, the clever-but-not-all-that-clever study into the self-destructive nature of status obsession. I can see why it “works”. Nevertheless, I still see a book saturated in misogyny and revenge fantasies, holding women’s bodies ultimately accountable for the fin de siècle cultural crisis it depicts.

[Anonymous No.6036437]

It’s not that I’m shocked (although I do feel a degree of mumsy disappointment at the lovely Matt Smith taking on the role of Patrick Bateman in last year’s musical based on the book). If anything, I suspect more readers feel unsettled by criticisms of the work than by the work itself. Welsh contends that American Psycho “offers no easy resolutions […] no comforting knowledge […] no […] hiding place for the reader”. I would argue that it does, in the most conservative, unimaginative way possible: watch some women being tortured. When a woman is raped, her fingers nail gunned to the floor, her tongue cut out and thrown to the wall, all while she is still conscious, it is a form of release for the reader. It alleviates the trauma of engaging with a satire on the dog-eat-dog world western men have created for themselves. Watching women die, at pleasingly regular intervals, is the reward for having had to engage with something really traumatic, something that calls into question your own self-esteem and sense of purpose. Take a break while a man sticks his cock into the mouth of the woman he’s just decapitated. Go on, it’s the least you deserve. In an interview Easton Ellis describes how “a lot of [the work] had to do with my frustration with having to become an adult and what it meant to be an adult male in American society”. American society might be fragile and greedy, but the male ego is more so. It’s not surprising that mostly male readers are too frightened to engage with the idea that when American Psycho “holds a hyper-real, satirical mirror up to our faces” it is not simply reflecting, in a reassuringly vague fashion, “the savage society we’ve created” but their own weakness and moral immaturity.

[Anonymous No.6036439]

The defence of misogynist art is not dissimilar to the defence of misogynist everything else. Misogyny both creates and thrives on women’s intellectual insecurities, implying that dissent merely signifies one’s inability to access a greater, higher truth. Don’t criticise misogyny in porn or people will say you’re sexually repressed; don’t criticise it in comedy or they’ll say you’re humourless; don’t criticise it in art or they’ll say you’re stupid. In fact, why not save time and never criticise it anywhere? Be a cool girl, not some 1970s earth mother who believes all kinds of hippy shit about women’s bodies, inner lives and creativity being worth something. Welsh describes the outrage directed at American Psycho as “disingenuous”. It’s not clear what he means – perhaps he doesn’t know, either – but it’s made quite clear that a good girl ought to shut up and do what the nice man says.
It’s hard not to follow that advice, especially when you’re young. While studying for my PhD, whenever I came across some aspect of literary theory I found incoherent – particularly in relation to gender – my “this is bollocks” response was almost instantaneously recast as “clearly I’ve missed something here, so I’d better go along with it”. We grow up feeling intellectually inferior to men. When we impress it is because we’re dutiful, compliant plodders, unlike our genius male counterparts. For us it is hard not to feel a fraud and all too easy to panic. When thrown off guard, it is easiest to parrot the supposedly complex, nuanced opinions of those who intimidate us the most (and in a sexist world such people will rarely, if ever, be other women).

[Anonymous No.6036442]

Having gained lower-level access to institutions and conversations from which we were previously excluded, women are under tremendous pressure to show that we deserve to be there at all. To prove ourselves the equals of men we need to be people who know (or reflect male “knowledge”), not women who question, analyse and, God forbid, feel. Arguing that something is sexist instantly places one back in the “feeling, not knowing” camp. Hence it becomes harder and harder to say that anything is sexist at all. We find ways around it, complex circumlocutions to try and give our female experience an air of universal (i.e. male) truth. Sometimes it works, but always at the expense of allowing us to say what we really mean. Perhaps we should be going back to basics, calling out plain, unadorned sexism again and again until someone hears us (after all, if repetition is a valid technique for Easton Ellis, why not for us?).
Of course, it is perfectly possible for great literature to be written by misogynists and/or contain within it a misogynist dynamic. Indeed, I suspect a huge proportion of it does. But when violent woman-hatred functions as a palate cleanser within a supposedly complex work, I don’t think our only response should be applause. Neither genre nor perceived intellectual complexity should deter us from naming the words and images that degrade and harm us. So what if people like Welsh resort to calling us childish? As the great artist Adam Ant once said, ridicule is nothing to be scared of. Misogyny’s the thing to fear.

[Anonymous No.6036446]

Didn't read lol

[Anonymous No.6036447]

>>6036435
>>6036437
>>6036439
>using ledubsman
>not getting any dubs
shame on you

[Anonymous No.6036450]

Thank you for posting it so we don't have to give them page views.

> I remain unconvinced, but that may be because I’m one of those people who “childishly insist on confusing protagonists with their authors”.
>When a woman is raped, her fingers nail gunned to the floor, her tongue cut out and thrown to the wall, all while she is still conscious, it is a form of release for the reader. It alleviates the trauma of engaging with a satire on the dog-eat-dog world western men have created for themselves.

How does garbage like this get published. Anyone who's read the book and thought critically about it could reject this as clear evidence she didn't bother understanding the book at all.

[Anonymous No.6036466]

>>6036446
You didn't miss much, she's a nutter.

[Anonymous No.6036482]

>I remain unconvinced, but that may be because I’m one of those people who “childishly insist on confusing protagonists with their authors”.
> While studying for my PhD
Holy Jeebus.

[Anonymous No.6036512]

>>6036450

I can see her point on this. It's a classic release valve for people concerned about their place in the world; find someone obviously worse off than yourself and dominate them to feel like a boss again. "I don't feel that great about myself, but at least I'm better than that person/group." She's positing that the domination and destruction of women in the book fills this function for Bateman and also the reader; a messier version of throwing a plate at a wall to relieve your anger.

[Anonymous No.6036523]

>>6036434
There there, wasn't that nice and reassuring, go and lie down now and rest that poor busy brain of yours because even pandering sophistry can be taxing: cant it? .

[Anonymous No.6036524]

>>6036512
>She's positing that the domination and destruction of women in the book fills this function for Bateman and also the reader; a messier version of throwing a plate at a wall to relieve your anger.
For Bateman, surely, but at least when I read the book, it wasn't a release for me, the more gruesome parts were pretty uncomfortable. Even more childish than insisting on confusing the protagonist with the author is confusing the protagonist with the reader.

[Anonymous No.6036622]

If everyone thinks the protagonist is a misogynist then is it even still a misogynistic work? So much has been written about American Psycho and misogyny. Everybody knows this. So if everybody knows this, then the work has no power to sway us on the subject (presumably the danger is that it will make us misogynists). So if it's that obvious and it has no power, what exactly is the problem? If we can remove ourselves from it in that way and say "that's misogynistic" then isn't that kind of proof of a satirical value or value as commentary?

[Anonymous No.6036637]

>>6036622
Women are genetically unable to imagine any other perspective then their own. That's why all women's lit is written in first person.

[Anonymous No.6036663]

Violence is exciting, so what?

[Anonymous No.6036692]

I could forgive him for dismembering and eating women, it was throwing coins to seals that made me lose all sympathy for him.

[Anonymous No.6036704]

>men and women are equal
>killing women is misogynistic

Delicious third wave feminism. You know every time you make a big deal out of horror story victims being women you're undermining what else you say about women.

[Anonymous No.6036717]

>>6036434
>muh misogyny in art
Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous No.6036720]

>>6036704
lel. 2/10

[Anonymous No.6036728]

>>6036704
I agree with
>>6036720
why shouldn't women's lives be equally disposable as men's lives?

[Anonymous No.6036729]

>>6036704
I remember how GTA got the rape culture label, when literally the only thing you can't do in that game is rape someone.

[Anonymous No.6036736]

>>6036728
Well biologically speaking male lifes are way less important.

[Anonymous No.6036742]

>>6036736
Riiiight

[Anonymous No.6036756]

>>6036736
for like insects and stuff, right?

[Anonymous No.6036758]

>>6036736
Biologically speaking men are bigger, stronger and faster than women.

[Anonymous No.6036759]

>>6036758
So they can die protecting the women

[Anonymous No.6036761]

>>6036758
>men come faster than women
speak for urself bruv ;)

[Anonymous No.6036766]

>>6036434
Outside of pointing out the misoginy/escape valve present on the rape/murder scenes, she doesn't speak nothing interesting.

Essetially, she's saying it's OK for caling shit out for being sexist, racist, and that shoudn't be criticized for "missing the point". And, them she repeats herself saying the same thing for the whole article hoping that repetition can convince people.

Well, I do think that's dumb and a person shouldn't read a book with its own concern on mind and nothing else. And pointing out shit like misoginy, sexism, racism on stories adds nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.6036767]

>>6036758
>Not recommending girls to use test pill and such things to become as bulky as men.

[Anonymous No.6036770]

>>6036766
It's the /pol/ of the world.

All they can talk about the yews and how the yews control the media and are in everything.


It's pretty cringey.

[Anonymous No.6036777]

>>6036759
"Girls have vaginas and therefore are more important"

-feminists

[Anonymous No.6036780]

>>6036777
"i have no idea what I'm talking about"

-thoughts of straw, with a density of cheeseburger

[Anonymous No.6036782]

>>6036777
no, girls can have dicks now too

[Anonymous No.6036785]

>>6036780
>thoughts of straw, with a density of cheeseburger
lol that's pretty desperate

[Anonymous No.6036789]

>>6036782
touche

[Anonymous No.6036820]

>>6036782
Thank you Jesus

[Anonymous No.6036824]

>>6036782
Trannies prove men are better than women at everything, even being awoman

[Anonymous No.6036856]

>>6036736

'way less' is too strong said when you speak about humans where men are needed to feed/help to feed the family

nowadays when most of the toil can be done by machines served by persons of any gender, we have too many humans already and also an institute of family and anyway women aren't fond of idea to row to bear children of some alpha, they want a personal relationship

also otherwise there would be more women than man born while now the ratio is roughly the same (slightly more men is born due to their higher mortality)

[Anonymous No.6036868]

tumb/lit/s hot pocket janitor is at it again

[Anonymous No.6036870]

>Welsh describes the outrage directed at American Psycho as “disingenuous”. It’s not clear what he means – perhaps he doesn’t know, either – but it’s made quite clear that a good girl ought to shut up and do what the nice man says.

It's funny to see some retarded SJW actually respond to a comment like that. It's pretty obvious what he means. When you're kicking up a shitstorm about something that on offends you on a theoretical level you are being disingenuous

I'm not really sure of the point of the article. Okay so let's say it is misogynistic - now what? BEE was like 12 when he wrote it and he admits he was trying to grapple with what it means to be a man when he was writing it. It's perfectly plausible that he was being misogynistic. It's perfectly valid to explore those kind of feelings in art. A lot of these easily offended types seem to have the response "OMG this thing is offensive and therefore it is trying to make that offensive thing okay which it isn't!". Maybe it's trying to be offensive and to ask some ugly questions about humanity?

[Anonymous No.6036877]

>>6036856
>slightly more men is born due to their higher mortality
i thought both of these statements were the opposite?

[Anonymous No.6036878]

>>6036736
I misspoke and had my post deleted.
Women are obviously biologically bigger stronger and faster than men,

[Anonymous No.6036881]

>>6036704

What is the point you are trying to make? "Men and women are equal, so women shouldn't get annoyed when it is suggested that getting off on murdering them is good"? What's the connection.

[Anonymous No.6036883]

>New Statesman
really

[Anonymous No.6036884]

>>6036447

>muh board culture

this is ironic or you are literally retarded?

[Anonymous No.6036887]

>>6036856
There are slightly more men existing than women because of mass female infanticide in countries like India and China.

[Anonymous No.6036888]

>>6036881
>when it is suggested that getting off on murdering them is good
where did you get that from?

[Anonymous No.6036890]

>>6036881
Bateman's pretty equal opportunity as a killer.
Male victims are not noticed by feminists.

[Anonymous No.6036895]

>>6036887
So there is statistically no gf for me?

[Anonymous No.6036905]

>>6036888

What was the point you were making then? That feminists shouldn't care about depictions of women being killed for sexual gratification because men and women are equal?

[Anonymous No.6036908]

>>6036895
no qt Indian or Chinese girl.
>implying their cultures don't have a weird 'big white cock' obsession the same way our culture is obsessed with black dicks.

[Anonymous No.6036910]

>>6036905
>for sexual gratification
was that mentioned?

and so what if that's the killer's intent?

[Anonymous No.6036938]

>>6036766
>Essetially, she's saying it's OK for caling shit out for being sexist, racist, and that shoudn't be criticized for "missing the point".
Calling out Bateman for sexism, racism etc. isn't missing the point, but it is a bit redundant.
Calling out Ellis for racism, sexism is missing the point.

[Anonymous No.6036955]

>>6036938
pretty much this

[Anonymous No.6037003]

>>6036742
From an evolutionary perspective, he is right. Warfare is ingrained in the way people interact in groups, and even in monkeys it's the men who do the fighting and dying so the elite few men can reproduce with all of the women. A conqueror like Ghengis Khan has innumerable children, enough to replace all the men that died in his conquests. Nature selects traits by killing off the weak men.
Hell, it's even mirrored in reproduction. Millions of sperm, the fastest of which gets to fertilize the egg, and all the others die. Men are disposable, women are not.

[Anonymous No.6037006]

>>6037003
>dat genetic determinism fallacy

[Anonymous No.6037012]

>>6037003
>Men are disposable, women are not.
Fertile women are not.
In an underpopulated world.

[Anonymous No.6037013]

>>6037003
i mean, you could prove this wrong by the simplest, most low-brow way of thinking: if there are no men, the human race can not progress, because the women can not get children. Same the other way around, so they're both of equal 'worth'.

[Anonymous No.6037029]

>>6036435
Tl;dr, I will say that people who don't see the need for feminism are fucking stupid. I do consider them beneath me, incapable of critical thought, unaware of the world around them. To call a work of art misogynistic is to look at a piece and realize it has that component to it.

[Anonymous No.6037035]

>>6037013
Of course you need both men and women, but from a biological perspective I'm saying that in context of a group an individual man is less important relative to an individual woman. Take ten male monkeys and ten female monkeys. The strongest male monkey will impregnate all of the females. In the context of passing on genetics, every female mattered. For males, only the strongest passed on his genes.
From a biological perspective, the lives of the 9 males didn't really matter.

[Anonymous No.6037038]

>>6037003
Considering that evolution isn't real that doesn't really matter

[Anonymous No.6037051]

>>6037035
could you not do the same for women, though?

[Anonymous No.6037071]

>>6036435
>, Irvine Welsh has written a piece on why Easton Ellis’s 1991 work American Psycho remains “one of the greatest novels of our time”.

I hope he had those words presented to him with ketchup.

[Anonymous No.6037087]

>>6037051
No. In nature, there aren't significant cases where the lady monkeys are so fit for breeding (attractive) that they shut out the others. If there's one really attractive lady monkey in the ten, her suitability for breeding does not stop the other female monkeys from getting impregnated. She does not physically stop attempts to breed with the other female monkeys. A male very suited for breeding (being strong) will physically keep the other males from reproducing by impregnating all of the females first. It's the exclusivity that's important.

[Anonymous No.6037103]

>hurrr American Psycho is misogynistic therefore it's a bad book

Are there really people who judge the literary value of a book by examining the morals of their author ? Wtf.


Also American Psycho is crap, but obviously not because of its misogyny

[Anonymous No.6037131]

>>6037003
>>>/tumblr/