/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7423128]

How come women can't write?

[Anonymous No.7423131]

Frankenstein was good

[Anonymous No.7423132]

>>7423128
Are you bored, OP?

[Anonymous No.7423133]

The Bell Jar was good

[Anonymous No.7423137]

>>7423132
curious

[Anonymous No.7423138]

>>7423128
Their boobs get in the way.

[Anonymous No.7423148]

No Significant Emotion tbph(w,'p'iaowsethots;oidam'p'lskoipf-irltnuo'l'aaitpoprarsm)wyhf(a,idl(so'l',tiguiitcs)m'f'biuiaasmtoc,afta-atc(t,ycctascbhint/p/dootuttaei'wwkas'))

(to be perfectly honest (well, 'perfectly' inasmuch as one would simply emphasize the honesty of the situation; obviously I don't actually mean 'perfect' like some kind of ideal Platonic form-- it's rather like the new use of 'literally' as an intensifier that pisses off prescriptivist retards and redditors so much) with you here family (again, I don't literally (speaking of 'literally', there I go using it in the classical sense) mean 'family' but I'm using it as a somewhat metaphorical term of camaraderie, adopted from the african-american twitter community (there, you can cite that as something clever blacks have invented next time /pol/ does one of their usual threads that always end in 'WE WUZ KINGS AND SHIT')))

[Anonymous No.7423150]

>>7423128

virginia woolf - a room one's own.

does a pretty good job of explaining it.

[Anonymous No.7423173]

>>7423128
they is dumb

[Anonymous No.7423202]

>>7423148
jeepers.

[Anonymous No.7423241]

>>7423148
What the fuck senpai

[Anonymous No.7423243]

>>7423148
is this postmodern tweeting?

[Anonymous No.7423244]

>>7423148
4.5/10
trying too hard, shop it around plebbit a bit

[Anonymous No.7423913]

>>7423148
Were you inspired by my Wittgenstien post anon

I'm proud of you if that's the case - fight the good fight with meta-ironic-shitposting to expose the lies and humor of postmodern internet culture.

[Anonymous No.7423916]

>>7423148
still didn't answer the question

would sage this post if it was possible, reddit tier self adulation as usual with l*t

[Anonymous No.7423936]

>>7423916
Your thread is shit though. Woman can write, they're just more emotional at a general level than men and less interested in academia or serious literature at higher level due to often getting pregnant and shitting out a baby over a period of a year. Not to mention, they haven't been well educated until very recently in human terms.

It's very simple. These are influences, not determinations - there are plenty of great women writers who do well despite that.

[Anonymous No.7423945]

>>7423133
No it wasn't. Women can write, but that's a poor example.

[Anonymous No.7423952]

>>7423128
Lesbians are usually better writers than normal women for some reason.

[Anonymous No.7423956]

>>7423128
If women can't write, then explain why lasts year's best books of almost every genre were all written by women.

[Anonymous No.7423971]

>>7423956
Avatar is the greatest movie of all time.
Candy Crush is one of the greatest video games of all time.

[Anonymous No.7424003]

>>7423956
"best"

[Anonymous No.7424031]

>>7423956
Whoops. I meant 'then how come nearly all of last year's best books voted on goodreads were all written by women"

[Anonymous No.7424167]

>>7423936
And men don't care about their sons

[Anonymous No.7424170]

>>7424031
that just means most of the goodreads members are women.

[Anonymous No.7424198]

>>7423128
>what is Virginia Woolf
>what is Emma Goldman
>what is Simone de Beauvoir
>what is Andrea Dworkin
>what is Catharine MacKinnon
>what is Alice Schwarzer

(Probably not a coincidence that all brilliant women were/are also radical feminists.)

[Anonymous No.7424202]

>>7424167
>implying it's a bad thing

[Anonymous No.7424210]

the first novel was written by a woman desu

[Anonymous No.7424250]

>>7424167
I think the golden age of fathers pretending to give a shit about their children beyond cheap labor are coming to an end. Raising kids is women's work. Always was, always will be.

[Anonymous No.7424296]

>>7424198
Actually, most almost every intellectual woman is androgynous.

[Anonymous No.7424323]

>>7424296
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Gonna go on a limb and assume that you intrinsically associate femininity with dumbness so any non-dumb woman is automatically not fully female for you.

Pretty fucked up logic.

[Anonymous No.7424329]

>>7424323
It means he feels insecure when a woman is more intelligent than him.

[Anonymous No.7424410]

>>7424323
>>7424329
Well same goes for masculinity.
Very rarely highly masculine men will be intellectual.

Androgynous tend to be over-represented in intellectual fields.

[Anonymous No.7424416]

>>7424198
Virginia Woolf is literally the only good writer you listed

[Anonymous No.7424421]

>>7424410
That's not true. Hyper-masculine brains are disproportionately represented in STEM fields. Masculinity shouldn't be defined by how muscular and hairy the person is.

[Anonymous No.7424427]

>>7423128
flannery O'Connor and toni Morrison are among my favorite writers.

it's not the board's fault if you're not well-read. that's obvious when you clutter up the board with your stupidity.

[Anonymous No.7424438]

>>7424416
and she looks like a fucking man

[Anonymous No.7424452]

Romance is an underrated genre

[Anonymous No.7424516]

>>7424421
I think your on your biology/neuroscience is stale.

This is an anonymous imageboard, I'm not willing to invest a detailed explanation if you're going to dismiss everything with low-level logical fallacies.

If you show signs of intelligent agency and perseverance, I'll be more than happy to campaign towards being elaborate and qt.

[Anonymous No.7424543]

>>7424516
Worst post i've read this week

[Anonymous No.7424549]

>>7424543
>Worst post i've read this week
Really? I've seen much worse and yours is part of that considering the grammatical mistakes.

[Anonymous No.7424560]

>>7424543
That's my post, why is it the worst post?

[Anonymous No.7424567]

>>7424549
>considering the grammatical mistakes.
List them

[Anonymous No.7424578]

Women literally aren't people

[Anonymous No.7424628]

>>7424416
>he hasn't read Dworkin

>>7424578
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.7424654]

>>7424578
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.7424682]

>>7424628
Dworkin is a controversy machine, she's not actually worthwhile unless you're interested in the formalism of trolling.

[Anonymous No.7424687]

you jelly of these fat volumes?

[Anonymous No.7424690]

>>7423148

[Anonymous No.7424691]

>>7424654
That's actually anti-reddit.
Been there, if you spout anything remote to that you'll get fucked to oblivion.

source: I tried reddit, posted non-edgy replies and got tons of hate for having an opinion that wasn't ultra leftist and utopic.

[Anonymous No.7424697]

>>7424691
>browsing reddit
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.7424699]

>>7423128
women are hedonistic, so they read but have no ability to write [since they have nothing to say].

[Anonymous No.7424700]

>>7424691
>>>/redpill/

That'd be more accurate. Reddit is generally more "progressive" though.

Choose either to read Virginia Woolf or "My Twisted World"

[Anonymous No.7424710]

>>7424697
4chan is the biggest advertiser of reddit and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.7424712]

>>7424710
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.7424716]

>>7424710
noo pls don't that plsss stop bullying me

[Anonymous No.7424720]

>>7424682
That's just because she speaks the truth.


(Troll but I actually mean it. Read her.)

[Anonymous No.7424722]

>>7424699
>women are hedonistic
top cake
>>>/r/mensrights

[Anonymous No.7424726]

>>7424699
>I'm a pleb!
Thanks for divulging that. Go to >>>/r/books where you'll feel more at home with other philistines.

[Anonymous No.7424727]

>>7424720
no

[Anonymous No.7424767]

>>7423952
The gays are better than the normal too.

[Anonymous No.7424783]

>>7424628
>>7424654
>>7424697
>>7424712
>>7424722
>>7424726
Note how women react with childish meme insults, projection, and non-sequiturs after being confronted and called out.

This is because all women have the mental capacity of a child, and also why there are no good female writers.

[Anonymous No.7424790]

>>7424783
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.7424795]

>>7424720
Go back to your fucking thread

[Anonymous No.7424798]

>>7424790
You should go back there.

[Anonymous No.7424799]

>>7424783
Still >>>/r/mensrights.

[Anonymous No.7424800]

>>7424795
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.7424809]

>>7424799
Note how the woman uses shaming in an attempt to conform people to her standards. If you say anything remotely critical about women you are a "men's rights activist".

Associating you with people who are perceived to be losers is used as a tactic by women because women are physically weak and have to resort to emotional and psychological abuse.

[Anonymous No.7424817]

>>7423128
I don't know why all the girls in college were poor at writing
I think it came down to being more interested in Facebook and chad's dick than reading
They tell me there's a girl crisis in my native stem major. No, there's a girl crisis in my writing club. Fix girls-in-stem when you fix how bad girls are at humanities.
The girls make it worse for themselves. They want to discuss their feelings on social justice instead of rhetoric basics.

I just... I just don't know man.

[Anonymous No.7424818]

I am doing a project on women's studies and it strikes me that women write a LOT of collaborative shit, and need mutual support. The entire field of gender's studies / women's studies is a perfect example. They need all these colloquia, special new journal foundations, special anthologies and collaborative works, 80% of the major books are co-written by two or five women instead of just one, half of the articles are written by three chicks instead of one (with no clear indication of who was responsible for what). I swear my period is synching up with these broads' from reading all this shit, and I'm not even a woman.

They just don't really tend to strike off into the foreboding wilderness and build an ivory tower as a monument to their own ego. They need to form these associations and work together. Also, half of the shit they talk about is how unfriendly and inhospitable men are. "Male journals" (read: journals open to anyone, but mostly submitted to by men) made an inhospitable environment by not talking about women so that the way would be paved for me to do talk about women! Men are making snide jokes about women in their work, which makes other women not want to write their own work! We need our own special atmospheres where we can feel safe and encouraged!

Every fucking thing is like this. The most militant hardcore lesbians, writing trans-continental trans-gendered histories of trans-dimensional fisting, spend half their time whining about how men didn't make them feel welcome, or how men are being meanies off in some university department somewhere.

Women need to man the fuck up. That's why they don't write anything.

[Anonymous No.7424828]

>>7424809
>the woman
Nice implications you got going there.
And what about it if I were a woman?
Do you use the word "woman" as a slur, like how some other bigots use the word "homo" as a slur?

>>7424817
>chad's dick
Literally >>>/r9k/. This board isn't the place for you.

>>7424818
Ever heard of sexism?
>Women need to man the fuck up.
Toppest of keks. Maybe men need to woman the fuck down.

[Anonymous No.7424836]

It's not so much that they can't write per se. It's that they have nothing interesting to say because females are a meme gender and they all have virtually interchangeable personalitIes. Good writing is inspired by hardship, wisdom, and experience, none of which are common to women.

[Anonymous No.7424837]

>tfw you realize >>7424828 literally sucks on cocks
>literally puts dick in her mouth and sucks on it
>probably licks balls too

you people are arguing with something that SUCKS PENISES

why don't you go discuss phenomenology with your dog while it eats cat turds too

[Anonymous No.7424842]

>>7424837
this is surprisingly convincing.

[Anonymous No.7424847]

>>7424837
You'd get better discussion out of the dog.

[Anonymous No.7424856]

>>7424837
It seems there are more cocks in your mouth right now, considering such you're such a flaming faggot.

[Anonymous No.7424858]

Their IQ distribution is much more uniform than the male IQ distribution due to differing evolutionary constraints because they have inherent value.

[Anonymous No.7424859]

>>7424828
>>7424720
>>7424628
>female shitposter
>anime memeposting
>linking other people to reddit

there is a zero percent chance you aren't a pimply virgin landwhale

enjoy your 20 cats, future spinster

[Anonymous No.7424862]

>>7424859
The future revealed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5OMoAahg50

[Anonymous No.7424867]

>>7424250
Childcare is women's work. Educating children is everybody's responsibility. You don't expect a boy to learn to throw a ball and hunt from his mother, do you?

[Anonymous No.7424872]

>>7424859
Am I on /b/?

[Anonymous No.7424875]

>>7424858
>inherent value

LMAO

[Anonymous No.7424880]

>>7424858
Nice spooks, my man.
>>7424859
Your level of discourse is suitable for reddit. Go there.

[Anonymous No.7424885]

>>7424875
It's not undefined you faggot. Women do have "inherent value" to societies because they are a scarce resource / bottleneck. Societies and traits that tend to prize and protect women better will survive better.

Men are disposable, AND it pays to treat them that way, because it encourages exceptionalism and hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.7424900]

>>7424885
>dat pseudo biology thought

What's high school like

[Anonymous No.7424914]

>>7424900
Tenured

>Dr. Roy Baumeister
>Princeton University, 1978
>Francis Eppes Eminent Scholar

Selected Publications

SELECTED BOOKS:

Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.) (1999). The Self in Social Psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).

Baumeister, R.F., & Tice, D.M. (2000). The Social Dimension of Sex. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.) (2001). Social Psychology and Human Sexuality. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).

Miracle, A., Miracle, T., & Baumeister, R.F. (2002). Human Sexuality: Meeting Your Basic Needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall/Pearson.

Loewenstein, G., Read, D., & Baumeister, R.F. (Eds.) (2003). Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice. New York: Russell Sage.

Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K.D. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford.

Baumeister, R.F. (2005). The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K.D. (Eds.) (2007). Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F., & Loewenstein, G.F. (Eds.) (2007). Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making?: A Hedgefoxian Perspective New York: Russell Sage.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. San Francisco, CA: Wadsworth.

Baer, J., Kaufmann, J., & Baumeister, R.F. (Eds.) (2008). Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.

Forgas, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Tice, D.M. (2009). Psychology of Self-Regulation: Cognitive, Affective, and Motivational Processes. New York: Psychology Press.

Baumeister, R.F., Mele, A.R., & Vohs, K.D. (Eds.) (2010). Free Will and Consciousness: How Might They Work? New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R.F., & Finkel, E.J. (Eds.) (2010). Advanced Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R.F. (2010). Is There Anything Good About Men? New York: Oxford University Press.

Vohs, K.D., & Baumeister, R.F. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (2nd Edn.). New York: Guilford.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social Psychology and Human Nature (2nd Edition). San Francisco, CA: Cengage.

Baumeister, R.F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. New York: Penguin Press.

Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K.D. (Eds.) (2012). New Directions in Social Psychology, Volumes I-V. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vohs, K.D., & Baumeister, R.F. (Eds.) (2012). The Self and Identity, Volumes I-V. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[Anonymous No.7424927]

You guys are so retarded.
Women will never be good at certain things i.e. math and engineering, their brains can't keep up with that.
On average women are less intelligent than males.

>b-but women were oppressed
Well I love this line because highly developed countries don't have that excuse any more.

Women get more degree than male but only the lower difficulty/complexity majors.

STEM is dominated by men, women find math and thinking hard. Do you think it's coincidence that the only smart females look male?
That because they produce excess androgens that growing up wire their brain and overall appearance more like males.

No matter how much you white knight or deny the truth, the facts are out there, in the real world.

You're as bad as religious folk.
>inb4 "retard", "b8" etc
Exactly, the more you ignore reality with "ALALALALAL" the more you prove to yourselves that you're just denying reality to feel good and you don't deserve the title of a human being, homo sapiens if the wise species, you are not.

[Anonymous No.7424928]

>>7424885
I don't disagree with anything you said, moron. I took issue with your use of "inherent value" because it's a nonsensical and meaningless phrase.

[Anonymous No.7424939]

>>7424927
for one thing, theres this thing called stereotype threat.

for another, youre probably a moron who hasnt achieved much irl

[Anonymous No.7424942]

>>7424928
The meaning was implicit: "to societies," which the post you are now replying to also fails to notice.

The only possible explanation of this recurring theme is that you are actually retarded in real life. I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.7424946]

>>7424900
you're wrong
>>7424885
He's right

feminists will resent this.

[Anonymous No.7424952]

>>7424939
>HURDDDFDURUUR I BET [YOU'RE A VIRGIN/NECKBEARD/DUMB/FAGGOT/ETC]

It's like poetry, so predictable, you just validate everything I said.

You can't provide anything to prove otherwise so you resort to stupidity.

[Anonymous No.7424953]

being good at writing requires making novel observations and thinking deeply about the world. women don't do this. probably because they receive a huge surplus of external validation so they hardly ever turn inward and become introspective. even an average looking woman receives the amount of attention, support and positive validation that only the the very richest, most attractive and most successful men do.

[Anonymous No.7424976]

>>7424250
Taking care of a child from birth to adolescence is a women's job. Taking care of an adolescent until he becomes a man is the job of a man.

[Anonymous No.7424981]

>>7424942
The only thing implicit in your continued use of an oxymoron is that you are the one who is retarded here.

[Anonymous No.7424984]

>>7424952
>suddenly all-caps
The post hit the bullseye for you huh?

[Anonymous No.7424987]

>>7424828
>posting /a/
>redirecting to r9k
>projecting
>not posting a rebuttal
this is why I never hire women. I throw out dozens of women's resumes everytime corporate makes me sit down and look at retarded resumes from college kids. Go be poor somewhere where you can contemplate sylvia plath's life choices, and their applicability to you.

[Anonymous No.7424988]

>>7424927
lol poor you

[Anonymous No.7424990]

>>7424939
>Stereotype threat
That's such a desperate term created by leftists to justify anyone who's less able and less intelligent.

They have been studies on babies and their behavior/thinking patterns, the male and female was always different.
Fucking google it fuckface, I guess you'll find another excuse then "the fetus is oppressed by patriarchy"

[Anonymous No.7424994]

>>7423956
Because all the actual good books transcend genre classification

[Anonymous No.7425008]

>>7424988
>>7424984
Ok not that retard who posted that anti-female propaganda but I do believe there are genetic differences between woman and it has been proven time and time again that women are better in certain tasks that men are not and vice versa.

Math for example is such a thing that males usually excel, the more abstract the better performance males have.


Do you disagree with that?
Ignore that troll and be honest do you really believe that every gender and race has the same exact potential in cognitive and physical abilities?

[Anonymous No.7425011]

>>7424939
>who hasnt achieved much irl
Why do women always play this card? It's like they don't have real arguments. Always resorting to underhanded "social status" tactics to try and discredit someone. Well, ladies, that's not how logic works. Go on, "Fedora" me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Anonymous No.7425015]

>>7424987
doing god's work

[Anonymous No.7425036]

>>7424939
>blaming you being a loser on "stereotype threat"

literally ressentiment

[Anonymous No.7425122]

>>7425008
>Math for example is such a thing that males usually excel, the more abstract the better performance males have.
Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.7425148]

>>7424987
Not sexist, but almost every woman I ever worked with was on Facebook about 50% of the day and either talking on the phone (personal calls) or talking to co-workers (socially) another 30%.

I don't think I've ever worked with a woman who did as much work as any given guy there, not one.

[Anonymous No.7425208]

>>7425148
I've had two woman coworkers so far and they were as productive as anyone else.

One is fairly complicit to feminine stereotypes, the other seemed somewhat nerdy but was still fairly feminine in personality.

On the other hand, the most masculinist coworker I ever had was incidentally the least productive. Everyone hated him in terms of work. It almost escalated to uncomfortable levels. A second coworker too frequently goes on masculinity trips (probably mental issues because it doesn't fit him at all so it's actually embarrassing to watch) and this annoys most around him and occasionally makes it unpleasant to work with him.

Gonna go on a limb and suggest that you have some deep bias.

[Anonymous No.7425223]

>>7425208
Not biased at all. It's a thoroughly honest assessment of the women I've worked with.

Interesting that rather than say my experience is specific to the jobs/workplaces/co-workers I've had, you go out and say bias. Very interesting.

[Anonymous No.7425229]

>>7424516
You do know males are generally measured to be superior at mathematical/spatial reasoning, detail-orientedness, systemizing ability, etc.? There's even a theory that autism represents mental hyper-"maleness" or an "extreme male brain" This doesn't mean physical/bodily masculinity, and autists for example actually tend toward androgyny.

[Anonymous No.7425234]

>>7425223
>thoroughly honest assessment
Why should I trust you?

>>7425229
>males are generally measured to be superior at mathematical/spatial reasoning, detail-orientedness, systemizing ability, etc.?
Citation fucking needed.
Three-dimensional spatial reasoning is the only one that has evidence IIRC, and then there's things they're worse at. Recognizing places or something IIRC.

[Anonymous No.7425253]

>>7425234
>citation fucking needed
How about you stop with the IIRCs and go look it up.

[Anonymous No.7425336]

>>7425122
See: history

[Anonymous No.7425368]

>>7425253
My IIRCs tend to be pretty solid.

>Differences in intelligence have long been a topic of debate among researchers and scholars. With the advent of the concept of g or general intelligence some form of empiricism was allowed, but results are often inconsistent with studies showing either no differences or advantages for both sexes, with many showing a slight advantage for males.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] One study did find some advantage for women in later life,[8] while another found that male advantages on some cognitive tests are minimized when controlling for socioeconomic factors.[9] The differences in average IQ between men and women are small in magnitude and inconsistent in direction.[10][11][12][13][14] Some studies have concluded that there is larger variability in male scores compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.[15][16] This remains a controversial claim.[17]

>There are however differences in the capacity of males and females in performing certain tasks, such as rotation of object in space, often categorized as spatial ability.

>Large, representative studies of US students show that no sex differences in mathematics performance exist before secondary school. During and after secondary school, historic sex differences in mathematics enrollment account for nearly all of the sex differences in mathematics performance. However, a performance difference in mathematics on the SAT exists favoring males, though differences in mathematics course performance measures favor females.[52] In 1983, Benbow concluded that the study showed a large sex difference by age 13 and that it was especially pronounced at the high end of the distribution.[53] However, Gallagher and Kaufman criticized Benbow's and other reports finding males overrepresented in the highest percentages as not ensuring representative sampling.[52]

>In a 2008 study paid for by the National Science Foundation in the United States, researchers found that "girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests. Although 20 years ago, high school boys performed better than girls in math, the researchers found that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many."[54][55] However, the study indicated that, while on average boys and girls performed similarly, boys were overrepresented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst.[56][57] A 2011 meta-analysis with 242 studies from 1990 to 2007 comprising of 1,286,350 people found no overall sex difference of performance in Mathematics. The meta-analysis also found that although there were no overall differences, a small sex difference that favored males in complex problem solving is still present in high school.[58]

And so on and so forth. Miniscule differences at most, which may or may not be explained by culture.

[Anonymous No.7425378]

>Some studies investigating the spatial abilities of men and women have found no significant differences,[64][65] though metastudies show a male advantage in mental rotation and assessing horizontality and verticality,[10][66] and a female advantage in spatial memory.[67][68]

>A proposed hypothesis is that men and women evolved different mental abilities to adapt to their different roles in society.[69][70] This explanation suggests that men may have evolved greater spatial abilities as a result of certain behaviors, such as navigating during a hunt.[71] Similarly, this hypothesis suggests that women may have evolved to devote more mental resources to remembering locations of food sources in relation to objects and other features in order to gather food.[72]

>Spatial abilities can be affected by experiences such as playing video games, complicating research on sex differences in spatial abilities.

It's almost as if it's all a waste of fucking time when there's really enough obvious proof of discrimination everywhere.

[Anonymous No.7425383]

>>7423128

Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces.

Nothing different can be expected of women if 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.

Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years, Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines

[Anonymous No.7425399]

>There is higher prevalence of dyslexia in males than in females.[95] However, different abnormalities are found in female brains as opposed to male brains. In a study that examined gray matter volume in dyslexic females, it was found that there was less gray matter volume in the right precuneus and paracentral lobule/medial frontal gyrus.[95] In males, there was less gray matter volume in the left inferior parietal cortex.[95] This study shows that dyslexia in females does not involve the left hemisphere regions involved in language as it does in males. Instead, it affects the sensory and motor cortices such as the motor and premotor cortex and primary visual cortex.[95]

And then you really really have to consider how much bias often goes into research, no matter how well it's executed. E.g.:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/11/20/what-explains-differences-in-color-preference-by-sex/
And then some stuff by Kinsey is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Dworkin criticizes it at depth in some chapters of I forgot which book, but it was pretty hilarious to read and made me feel horrible over how much credit is being given to Kinsey.

>>7425383
You seem to have confused this board for /pol/.

[Anonymous No.7425403]

>>7425399

>Schopenhauer
>not literature

[Anonymous No.7425417]

>>7425399
SCHOPENHAUER DID N O T H I N G WRONG

[Anonymous No.7425418]

>>7425368
In dealing with renowned authors, we're dealing with exceptional people, not the average. And tests of mental ability often show, at the very least, a male advantange (and disadvantage) manifesting itself on either extreme ends of the spectrum measuring mathematical/spatial reasoning and related things, which might otherwise be called logical/analytic tasks, while females are more consistently average and may excel in other, verbal-related tasks. This doesn't mean every prominent author has some genius-level IQ, or is good at math. But I think it at least hints at an underlying difference in how the sexes think, probably ultimately immeasurable, potentially helping explain why disproportionately certain males excel at producing complex, systematic forms of creative writing, along with stuff like philosophy, math, etc.. Not just in the past, but still today. Creative writing requires verbal/language abilities be harnessed by a significant logical/analytic power.

[Anonymous No.7425422]

>>7425403
>>7425417
Crap. Maybe we need a /pollit/.

[Anonymous No.7425429]

>>7425422
you mean /his/?

[Anonymous No.7425461]

>>7425418
>explain why disproportionately certain males excel at producing complex, systematic forms of creative writing
Did you know that Mozart had an equally talented older sister?
>However, given the views of her parents, prevalent in her society at the time, it became impossible as she grew older for her to continue her career any further. According to New Grove, "from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age."[1]

[Anonymous No.7425476]

>>7425422
>Eyy Schlomo let's set up a containment camp I mean board for those nasty /pol/ ppl lol
Jew

[Anonymous No.7425481]

>>7423128

How come you left r9k?

Go back there and have a circlejerk over your ressentiment.

[Anonymous No.7425487]

>>7425422
The only thing most people on /pol/ read are infographics.

[Anonymous No.7425489]

>>7425476
I laughed.

[Anonymous No.7425490]

>>7425461
I'm not saying it's impossible for women to reach men's level of achievement/competence, or anything like that. I'm just saying there's probably a biological difference which is largely responsible for a general tendency favoring over-representation of men in high-level achievement.

[Anonymous No.7425505]

>>7425490
Yeah, I also think that the systematic oppression of women is originally rooted in a biological fuckup in men, otherwise we wouldn't see such an oppression in literally every fucking culture on earth.

Even bonobos are better than us. Females live in packs, beat the shit out of the males who get sexually violent. Result? Have sex all fucking day, because female bonobos aren't and don't feel threatened by sex.

[Anonymous No.7425507]

>>7423128
>>>/r9k/
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.7425517]

I honestly can't tell-is this thread being ironic or is /lit/ this filled with hypocrisy?

[Anonymous No.7425519]

>>7425517
There are large numbers of idiots in every board on 4chan, no exceptions.

[Anonymous No.7425522]

>>7425517
Welcome to real life, kiddo
*sheathes dick*

[Anonymous No.7425542]

>>7425505
I agree, dog.

[Anonymous No.7425560]

>no matter how much women get mad at men calling them inferior, they will still actually be inferior
>no matter how many feminists ask for citations on the internet, their entire gender will still never produce a shakespeare, kant, newton, plato, einstein, bach, or goethe
>ever

[. No.7425564]

>>7424818
This.

Men are much more likely to take risks and engage in individual thought.

[Anonymous No.7425565]

>>7423148
I like how all the gibberish on top is just the first letter of everything he said

[Anonymous No.7425575]

>>7425505
>women are inferior yet the cause of their inferiority rests within a fault of the superior gender, rather than within their own.

Behold the power of female reason

[. No.7425597]

>>7425505
Jesus christ.

>the systematic oppression of women is originally rooted in a biological fuckup in men

Everything is men's fault.
Even scientifically recognized differences in logical/verbal ability.

>Females live in packs, beat the shit out of the males who get sexually violent.
Nvm you're trolling

5/10 bait

[Anonymous No.7425602]

Since it's pretty Reddit here, let me /lit/ up the thread a bit.

[Anonymous No.7425604]

>>7425597
Bet her fuckin mons is so good

[Anonymous No.7425606]

>>7425602

[Anonymous No.7425618]

>>7425602
>Dworkin was born in Camden, New Jersey, to Harry Dworkin and Sylvia Spiegel.
>Spiegel.
>For Grace Paley
>Grace Paley (née Goodside) was born in New York to Isaac and Manya Ridnyik Goodside, who anglicized the family name from Gutseit on immigrating from Ukraine. Her father was a doctor.[1] The family spoke Russian and Yiddish along with English.
>Ethnicity Jewish
>in Memory of Emma Goldman
>Goldman

[Anonymous No.7425624]

>>7425606
That was bad.

Not memeing

[Anonymous No.7425628]

>>7425618
You didn't need to go around looking for evidence that she's a Jew. She wrote whole fucking books on her Jewishness.
Did you mean to visit /pol/ or what?

>>7425624
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Anonymous No.7425630]

>>7425618
>>>/pol/
>>7425624
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.7425635]

>>7425628
>>7425630
Rape is good and funny

[Anonymous No.7425639]

>>7425628
I mean it was written proficiently but the content is overwrought saccharine bullshit

[Anonymous No.7425643]

>>7425635
Good for you, wacko. :)

[Anonymous No.7425644]

>>7425639
>built nice but shit on the inside

just like a woman

[Anonymous No.7425645]

Women are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew in my life one that had it, or who reasoned or acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together. Some little passion or humor always breaks upon their best resolutions. Their beauty neglected or controverted, their age increased, or their supposed understandings depreciated, instantly kindles their little passions, and overturns any system of consequential conduct, that in their most reasonable moments they might have been capable of forming. A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with serious matters; though he often makes them believe that he does both; which is the thing in the world that they are proud of; for they love mightily to be dabbling in business (which by the way they always spoil); and being justly distrustful that men in general look upon them in a trifling light, they almost adore that man who talks more seriously to them, and who seems to consult and trust them; I say, who seems; for weak men really do, but wise ones only seem to do it.


No flattery is either too high or too low for them. They will greedily swallow the highest, and gratefully accept of the lowest; and you may safely flatter any woman from her understanding down to the exquisite taste of her fan. Women who are either indisputably beautiful, or indisputably ugly, are best flattered, upon the score of their understandings; but those who are in a state of mediocrity, are best flattered upon their beauty, or at least their graces; for every woman who is not absolutely ugly thinks herself handsome; but not hearing often that she is so, is the more grateful and the more obliged to the few who tell her so; whereas a decided and conscious beauty looks upon every tribute paid to her beauty only as her due; but wants to shine, and to be considered on the side of her understanding; and a woman who is ugly enough to know that she is so, knows that she has nothing left for it but her understanding, which is consequently and probably (in more senses than one) her weak side. But these are secrets which you must keep inviolably, if you would not, like Orpheus, be torn to pieces by the whole sex; on the contrary, a man who thinks of living in the great world, must be gallant, polite, and attentive to please the women. They have, from the weakness of men, more or less influence in all courts; they absolutely stamp every man's character in the beau monde, and make it either current, or cry it down, and stop it in payments.

[Anonymous No.7425647]

>>7425644
while men are shit on the outside and inside?

[Anonymous No.7425653]

>>7425505
>I'm a loser because I'm oppressed!

There's that female ressentiment again.

[Anonymous No.7425658]

>>7425653
If I knew who you were, I'd have you fired or banned for being sexist! Then I'd be a strong powerful womyn!

[Anonymous No.7425659]

>>7425647
yes sugartits

[Anonymous No.7425667]

>>7425658
They're not even 'powerful' in that regard.
Power gained through whining and bitching is not true power and is just granted by the ones with actual power who push these agendas for personal gain aka Men.

Too bad there's all these hoes strutting around like they're hot shit when even the most beta of men could kill them.

[Anonymous No.7425673]

>>7425667
How many women do you think you could fight?

I think I could beat 5 as long as I went in swinging.

[Anonymous No.7425677]

>>7425673
quite a lot but you're not likely to be able to fight even 1 without numerous white-knight kekolds coming to her rescue.

[Anonymous No.7425689]

[Anonymous No.7425695]

>>7424953
Yes. I have often thought about this. While most dudes go through college facing unbelievable levels of personal angst and difficulty, even 3/10 women are being constantly hounded, pursued, and showered with love by droves of men, from their own age range all the way up to mid thirties or fortes. Women get this attention for the entire duration of age 12-35 or round about there.

Not saying this answers the OP's question, but I think it's very valid. Personally, I don't think women can't write, but I would agree that they are less frequently good writers. Obviously we're speaking anecdotally and in generalizations here and I have nothing to prove it.

I do notice on Facebook, for example, women's posts even on there tend to have a very distinct flavor. They are always incredibly self-involved; lots of re-use of the word "I", lots of focus on what just happened to them, what's going on in their life, how cute they are, etc. etc. You also tend to notice this when looking at women's dating profiles. Shit is always the same.

Women suffer from an excessive degree of self-involvement, self-centeredness, and ignorance towards these same traits. Their egocentricity and arrogance towards their appearance, based on the pampering they receive, would not be an issue if they were aware of it; but they tend to be blind to it. Maybe it's just rare for women writers to be able to trump these personality traits.

Not like it matters, they're still the center of the universe for 95% of the males in their vicinity.

[Anonymous No.7425707]

>>7425695
>>7424953
A wild wish has just flown from my heart to my head, I will not stifle it though it may excite a horse-laugh.—I do earnestly wish to see the distinction of sex confounded in society, unless where love animates the behaviour. For this distinction is, I am firmly persuaded, the foundation of the weakness of character ascribed to woman; is the cause why the understanding is neglected ...
Mankind, including every description, wish to be loved and respected for something; and the common herd will always take the nearest road to the completion of their wishes. The respect paid to wealth and beauty is the most certain, and unequivocal; and, of course, will always attract the vulgar eye of common minds. Abilities and virtues are absolutely necessary to raise men from the middle rank of life into notice; and the natural consequence is notorious; the middle rank contains most virtue and abilities. Men have thus, in one station, at least, an opportunity of exerting themselves with dignity, and of rising by the exertions which really improve a rational creature; but the whole female sex are, till their character is formed, in the same condition as the rich: for they are born ... with certain sexual privileges, and whilst they are gratuitously granted them, few will ever think of works of supererogation ...

[Anonymous No.7425710]

>>7425695
I don't think men are the least bit less self-centered than women.
What makes men even worse is their arrogance.

>>7425695
>center of the universe
And target of sexual harassment.

[Anonymous No.7425713]

>>7425695
They also act offended when you don't get on your hands and knees around them like other emasculated keks because they're so used to beta attention.

I'm a disgusting,ugly fuck and I'm never getting laid so I never pursue or try to talk to women(because sex is always the end goal of male-female interactions.) so they seem angered when I don't interact with them or disregard them.

[Anonymous No.7425714]

>>7425253
No, maleanon here, she has a right to ask for citations when you make a claim talking about 'evidence shows etc etc'. People spout bullshit too much to just take things on face value, particularly on /lit/ or /b/ or anywhere on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.7425715]

>>7425710
>What makes men even worse is their arrogance.

" Men's egotism, so disgusting in the talentless, is the source of their greatness as a sex. [...] Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."

[Anonymous No.7425717]

>>7425713
this is such an adorable self-defense mechanism.

[Anonymous No.7425719]

>>7425714
Shoo shoo white knight
She engaged in blatant hypocrisy.
You'll get no pussy here you thirsty hound, shoo

[Anonymous No.7425722]

>>7425717
against what?
no woman will ever find me attractive me or desirable so there's no real need to waste time pursuing them.

I don't see what's wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.7425725]

>>7425717
It's funny when people embody their own insults like this

[Anonymous No.7425727]

>>7425575
kek'd.

[Anonymous No.7425729]

>>7425722
who said it was wrong? why are you so defensive?

>no woman will ever find me attractive me or desirable so there's no real need to waste time pursuing them.

unironic articulations of subconscious self-defense mechanisms: the post

[Anonymous No.7425736]

>>7425645
Who's this? Not bad stuff. Ye old 18th century PUA.

[Anonymous No.7425737]

>>7425602
>the year is 2157
>through social and biological engineering humans have been rid of all notions of inequality and discrimination
>all dishes are washed within the automated communal tenement system
>all children are produced via artificial fertilization and fetal development capsules, fed by random sampling of biological material from the general population except for a minimum reparative-therapeutic component of at least 25% pure black stud
>all children are reared communally, including the tuckings of the children into bed, by ungendered nurture-entities whose identities are masked by a loose flowing sheet worn head to toe and a portable voice-changer device
>during fifth-level pan-cultural fusion sessions a child is discovered to have exceptional capabilities
>at age 14 she produces a single sentence which ensures her status as not just the era's foremost trans-post-arelative-ethnoventriloquist writer but the long-prophesized female avatar of Shakespeare:
>"fuck men."

[Anonymous No.7425739]

>>7425725
>'p-p-projecting!'

doesnt sound rustled at all

[Anonymous No.7425742]

>>7425729
It's obvious what you were referring to when you said 'defense-mechanism' so I merely explained my reasoning, you also implied it was wrong because you said 'defense-mechanism', as if I'm traumatised or broken when I'm just being pragmatic.

Perhaps it's you with the defense-mechanism? Do you not want to face the truth, anon?

[Anonymous No.7425745]

>>7425739
Not that guy, i got laid last night and expect to tn as well. It's just funny how ppl do that.

[Anonymous No.7425749]

>>7424198

Why so Jew?

[Anonymous No.7425750]

>>7425710
>And target of sexual harassment.

I have not once seen an attractive woman complain about sexual harassment and I doubt you're an exception. Meaning you're probably a disgusting slag who is resentful of the place in which the universe has put her, judging by your whining about how women aren't exceptional because they are oppressed.

It's funny how the ugliest women are always the loudest about sexual harassment. They have to signal that they are getting (imaginary) attention because nobody would be able to tell otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7425765]

>>7425717
This is such a catty, envious, passive aggressive cum dumpster.

[Anonymous No.7425769]

>>7425742
>It's obvious what you were referring to when you said 'defense-mechanism' so I merely explained my reasoning

random defensive sentence.

>you also implied it was wrong

self-victimizing apropos of nothing

>you said 'defense-mechanism', as if I'm traumatised or broken

which is obvious to everyone

>when I'm just being pragmatic.

should i say it again

>Perhaps it's you with the defense-mechanism? Do you not want to face the truth, anon?

rustled. you can try to psychoanalyze me if you want, it'll be like a workshop.

[Anonymous No.7425777]

>>7425769
You go online pick on people who present themselves as weak for kicks because you're a weak cowardly bully.
Fitemeirl

[Anonymous No.7425778]

>>7425765
>This is such a catty

thanks

>envious

i have it pretty good

>passive aggressive

ehh a litte bit

> cum dumpster.

do you pretend all the people that hurt your feelings on the internet are women? does that make it easier

[Anonymous No.7425781]

>>7425769
I don't understand why you're so buttmad because of my opinion though?

What part of my post makes you tushy troubled, anon? I'm genuinely interested.

[Anonymous No.7425782]

>>7425710
Women receive much more amorous attention than men. They have every reason to be more self-centered due to this fact.

But let's humor you and say it's even. Then I still think the issue with women is that they don't tend to be aware of their own arrogance. The thing with men is that they are typically cognizant of their arrogance, when they possess it. That's because it gets reflected back in your face. But for women, it's possible to hide your arrogance and egotism behind the construct of your life story. Every woman thinks it's natural to have a huge grandiose wedding, to grow up a princess, to be spoiled by endless loads of attention. It's just taken as a woman's due. This tends to make women arrogant and cocky in a qualitatively different way than men are.

When men are arrogant, everyone knows they are arrogant assholes. Whether they are effective becomes the more paramount question. When women are arrogant, it is concealed by themselves and to themselves. The spoiling nature of the effect turns inwards and corrupts their ability to develop their writing. The hardest part about writing, perhaps, is the act of self-critique which requires self-honesty. Can (the average) women sustain self-honesty in this situation? Probably not.

[. No.7425784]

>>7425778
Not even involved in the debate, but you do have a distinctively feminine writing style.
Even with what little you've wrote, it reeks of undeserved arrogance and ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.7425785]

>>7425777
>You go online pick on people who present themselves as weak for kicks

yes

>because you're a weak

no my squat is like 140kg. i'm sure it'll be 200kg within a few months.

>cowardly

why

>bully

hmm

[Anonymous No.7425786]

>>7425784
Right? What a bitch

[Anonymous No.7425791]

>>7425785
>increasing squat by 60 kg and 42% 'within a few months'
You are not a very good liar.

[Anonymous No.7425792]

>>7423936
not my thread, retard

[Anonymous No.7425793]

>>7423148
post-joycean post

[Anonymous No.7425794]

>>7425785
>no my squat is like 140kg. i'm sure it'll be 200kg within a few months.

no one talks like this
female exposed, 2bh

[Anonymous No.7425798]

>>7425781
deflection: a 2d adventure

>>7425784
really? and people tell me my poetry is off puttingly masculine. was it the 'adorable'? there's not many ways to phrase that sentence and achieve the same amount of condescension without using a 'feminine' adjective.

>undeserved arrogance

no, it's pretty deserved

>ad hominem

insulting people does not equal ad hominem you pleb. it has to be structurally embedded in an argument. jeez.

[Anonymous No.7425806]

>>7425798
Stop pretending you have a dick.
If ppl tell you you have masculine poetry scoff its because you're fucking female

[Anonymous No.7425808]

>>7425798
>deflection: a 2d adventure
so you don't want to say it?

You're either a woman or an ugly man who feels irked by the truth; that he is not desirable.

[Anonymous No.7425809]

>>7425791
is it that hard? i started SS in the summer and i got up to 140 after plateauing at my bodyweight for a bit in november. how hard does progress get after this? i didn't realize the progression curved shifted that much, my gains have been pretty fast so far desu

>>7425794
but im not talking???

[Anonymous No.7425810]

>>7425806
Based

[. No.7425814]

>>7425798
Don't get so emotional, hon.


Your mention of lifting makes it obvious you've never touched a weight.

Sorry people online are mean, but I'm sure tumblr has a safe space available.

[Anonymous No.7425818]

>>7425481
never been

[Anonymous No.7425820]

>>7425809
Progress gets pretty hard after the original lie wears off and you have to keep adding on to the snowball.

[Anonymous No.7425821]

>>7425809
You write like a woman.

Also what you are experiencing is noobgains, so you can't have been lifting for very long (if you're even telling the truth, which I doubt).

[Anonymous No.7425828]

>>7425821
>Also what you are experiencing is noobgains, so you can't have been lifting for very long

just started in the summer. as long as i got a /fit/izen here, why does bench press progress so much more slowly than my squat or my deadlift? it feels pretty bad when everyone else in the gym is doing more than me.

[Anonymous No.7425833]

>>7425828
Because you made it all up you lying wet hole

[Anonymous No.7425835]

>>7425828
>land whale Californian bitch started using her parents' money to go to trendy Crossfit gym and has now re-centered her identity to revolve around lifting, whilst assimilating her previously developed pathological liar-hood

[Anonymous No.7425841]

>>7425820
>>7425814

>

>>7425778

>>7425808
see this is a PERFECT example of projection, unlike what you memers were accusing me of earlier. you structure a critique of something in empty terms -> it is a critique of yourself.

when i did it i used his own words against him. now who wants to display introjection?

[Anonymous No.7425842]

>>7425828
I love how you moaned about deflection but you're literally doing it now when questioned on why you feel so ass blasted at that anon.

[Anonymous No.7425845]

>>7425645
lord chesterfield

[Anonymous No.7425851]

>>7425784
this 2bh

[Anonymous No.7425854]

>>7425736
>>7425845

[Anonymous No.7425862]

>>7425841
>see guise you're all big meanies unlike me! It's not me who got mad as fuck for whatever reason because an anon said he's ugly and women don't want him
just give up

[Anonymous No.7425864]

>>7425835

essentially accurate except for the crossfit, pathological liar, california and woman part. you're progressing? but the california part you could tell by the kg, so you're still holding yourself back.

[Anonymous No.7425874]

>>7425841
No one is impressed by your understanding of basic dialectic patterns. Let's get back to the main topic. Why is your gender so shitty at writing? The last primary argument was not rebutted.
>>7425782

[Anonymous No.7425879]

>>7425864
If you're not a woman, then I feel incredibly sorry for the parents who have raised the insane Guiness WR level betafag that you seem to be.

[Anonymous No.7425880]

>>7425862
>you're all big meanies

i admitted i was bullying that anon, meanness isn't at play here, it's being correct.

>It's not me who got mad as fuck for whatever reason because an anon said he's ugly and women don't want him
>for whatever reason

you must agree that rattling stray /r9k/s is a worthwhile enterprise. why do you think we them their own board if not to make fun of them?

>just give up

you keep replying tho. at some level, you want this.

>>7425842
>I love how you moaned about deflection but you're literally doing it now when questioned on why you feel so ass blasted at that anon.

i said why i was picking on that anon

[Anonymous No.7425889]

>>7425880
>i said why i was picking on that anon
not really, that anon's post wasn't even /r9k/ he was just saying that women expect beta fuccbois to bend over for them and he doesn't because he know he's never gonna get laid so there's no point trying.

It's just sad the lengths you go to defend this.

[Anonymous No.7425894]

>>7424927
>tfw no Amazon gf

[Anonymous No.7425902]

>>7425874
>No one is impressed by your understanding of basic dialectic patterns

the rustled fags keep replying to me, at least it's working as intended.

>Let's get back to the main topic.

the implication that topics are a static entity on /lit/ is funny

>>7425879
are those your only two insults, i.e beta or woman? that's a shame i already talked about that.

[Anonymous No.7425908]

>>7425902
You go girl

[Anonymous No.7425909]

>>7424809
>Women
>On an Afghan dick measuring noticeboard

[Anonymous No.7425910]

>>7425889
i'll refer you to >>7425785

>>>You go online pick on people who present themselves as weak for kicks

>>yes

>It's just sad the lengths you go to defend this.

defend what?

[Anonymous No.7425914]

>>7425910
Deez nuts

[Anonymous No.7425915]

>>7424837
What's so bad about sticking dick? Would you rather live in a dicksuckless world?

[Anonymous No.7425916]

This thread is pointless beyond triggering females, like we've seen itt.

[Anonymous No.7425919]

>>7425910
I'm not that poster you kekold

[Anonymous No.7425925]

>>7425915
Performing oral sex on another person in general indicates a weak submissive character.

This is of course natural for a woman and thus not a flaw.

[Anonymous No.7425929]

>>7425914
fuck. baited.

[Anonymous No.7425938]

>>7424858
Woah! haha

[Anonymous No.7425944]

>>7425938
omg! waha

[Anonymous No.7425956]

Hi guys
I am a gril who posts on 4chan
b4 you ask here is a pic of me
I am a James Joyce scholar and I really liked all those parts in The Story of the Eye involving piss

ps you are all cis scum shitlords

[Anonymous No.7425963]

>>7425925
I dunno, always seemed like, despite the connotations around it, sucking dick puts you in a pretty powerful position. You've got a person's cock in between your teeth after all. You could just bite down on it like a sausage.

[Anonymous No.7425972]

>>7425963
when you bust a nut and she keeps sucking you squirm around like a lil dil

[Anonymous No.7425973]

>>7425963
A willingness to debase oneself in such a matter indicates an absolute lack of self-sufficiency, strength and personal honor.

[Anonymous No.7425998]

>>7425973
I was asking by what metric is it "debasing" yourself anymore than fingering a bird?

[Anonymous No.7426008]

>>7425973
outdated ideology my god

this is like finding an actually rare pepe

[Anonymous No.7426016]

>>7426008
Power and personal strength can never be outdated.
>>7425998
Manual stimulation is just as disgusting and weak, it is absolutely an emulation of feminine behavior and absolutely as if you had just performed oral sex.

[Anonymous No.7426027]

>>7426016
>Power and personal strength can never be outdated.

[Anonymous No.7426032]

>>7426027
he's not wrong 2bh
it just so happens the males of today like to be emasculated and grovel at any 4/10 women's feet.

[Anonymous No.7426066]

>>7426016
I can't say I agree with you at all, or even understand your point. How is it weak of effeminate?

[Anonymous No.7426102]

>woman doesn't like you saying she's boring and inferior because she coasts on her innate sexual capital
>she tries to shut you up by implying she wouldn't fuck you or that you can't get women to fuck you
>literally can't even stop using her sexual capital in an argument about how she has sexual capital
>mfw feminists are constantly implicitly admitting women are just walking vaginas
>mfw I tell them I'm gay and they get visibly confused as to how to argue with me

[Anonymous No.7426122]

>>7426102
The same exact happened in this thread
it started off in >>7425713
and then some vagina got ass mad and called him damaged and /r9k/ for many,many posts.

[Anonymous No.7426142]

>>7426122
Your post is the only occurrence of the word damaged in this thread fαm. And are you really gonna argue he's not the archetypal /r9k/? Look at him, he's dripping ressentiment.

[Anonymous No.7426169]

>>7426142
'damaged' was paraphrasing 2bh
There's nothing really /r9k/ in that post anyway, it's cynical but realistic about being an ugly man.

[Anonymous No.7426177]

>>7426102
Yes, but what does the last one hundred or so posts have to do with the original topic?

[Anonymous No.7426185]

>>7426169
>There's nothing really /r9k/ in that post anyway, it's cynical but realistic about being an ugly man

Why do you think those two statements are incompatible?

[Anonymous No.7426197]

>>7426185
A /r9k/ anon would blame someone else for his misfortunes, instead of his own.
It isn't just about being a loser.

[Anonymous No.7426200]

>>7426185
because if he were /r9k/ he'd be blaming women for not wanting to fuck him.

[noko No.7426222]

>>7425713
> le fedora tip