So, /lit/, why is it you hate women again?
>>7620868
>why is it you hate women again?
their inferior
>>7620870
>their
I don't hate women or children or cats. I just don't want to give them my tax dollars to go to university and pretend that they're people.
>>7620874
what's you're point?
duuude accents
>>7620874
Yeah like, what's you're opinion on females, man?
>>7620868
The woman hating r9k neckbeard meme is a an old fad that reddit recently caught on to and uses to try to get EPIC r/4chan screenshots
>>7620929
Yeah like it's totally not epic man. It's so Reddit. We should all stop doing it. Check my double digits by the way ! XD 4chan for the win.
There are more good female writers than there are average male writers.
>>7620918
groovy man, i dig em
top of the heap, hear?
some real ace cats, baby,
>that drag when no female
wew
lad
It's honestly just the case that women have been treated as dirt historically and haven't had the opportunities to write as many masterpieces as men. Doesn't mean in the coming years the Canon won't gradually acquire the fairer sex into its ranks, but just because there's been injustice in the past doesn't mean we should pretend every turd of a female writer today is significant or worst of all try to force some equilibrium in the reading of males vs females. let the game play itself out, right?
now why is it whenever I say this to a girl at school they get real offended and mad at me?
>>7620929
stop associating everything with reddit you fucking sperg
>>7620956
Some people take statistics personally.
>>7620956
>george eliot
>best novelist the english language has seen
>jane austen
>basically invents modern literature
>>7620874
*there inferior
>>7620993
there'fore
>>7620978
>george eliot
>best novelist the english language has seen
pointing out how good some guy named george is doesn't help you're argument that grils can right
>>7620978
>george eliot
>best novelist the english language has seen
wha..? Well, she might be in contention in terms of plot, I guess...
>jane austen
>basically invents modern literature
Oh, I see, you're just an idiot.
>>7621000
nah mate not even him but you're a doof if you don't see how influential Jane Austen was.
there would be no Faulkner, Nabokov, Pynchon wihtout Austen
>>7621010
I agree that she's hella influential, but she did not "invent modern literature". If anybody did, it's Cervantes.
But I admit you've intrigued me: what are some similarities between Pynchon and Austen?
>>7621021
I didn't write that, but i think it was more meant, like, popular literature now, the books that people actually fucking buy, the ones that fund the literary stuff that noone reads, all owe a huge debt to Austen.
>>7621021
prose m8 the playfulness and ease with which the narrator sets the scene and pops in and out of various ehads; a proto-fitzgerald
>>7621291
Oh, c'mon, you don't think just because their narrators move with ease he had to have picked it up from Austen, do you? Ever read Gogol or Fielding?
>thread about women
>ctrl+f virginia woolf
>ctrl+f mary shelley
>ctrl+f margaret atwood
>ctrl+f bronte
>ctrl+f didion
>ctrl+f zadie smith
>ctrl+f slyvia plath
>ctrl+f harper lee
>ctrl+f donna tartt
nothing
>>7620929
>trying to get us to stop hating women by tricking us into thinking it was reddit who started it
I'm on to you reddit
>>7620868
I don't hate women. I do however think it makes sense that the vast majority of the literary canon would be comprised of books by male authors because women had less opportunity to create literary classics from their position of subjugation.
Jane Austen and George Eliot are vastly overrated because for some reason society has to pretend that women somehow overcame the fact they were oppressed for millennia and still somehow wrote books just as good as the books by a gender that was not oppressed.
i dont hate women but i disagree with feminism because it isn't egalitarian since it gives preference to the women in some kind of power struggle over invisible "power" that doesnt even exist its just a stupid term that arts invented since they cant speak in anything but metaphor and dont want to acknowledge evolution as a thing seriously fuck bitches
>>7621312
my grandmum owns a signed first edition of one of Atwood's books, I can't remember which
I've had to read a couple of her novels and I didn't think much of them
>>7621449
And you don't find that convenient, somehow? Like, you don't have to read any of them now, because your worldview says that the fact that they were oppressed meant they were dumber?
Seems like a bit of a cop-out to me. Someone else in the thread said the same thing. Like, admitting women were oppressed isn't a good enough reason to dismiss the entire body of work written by half the population.
There have been wealthy, well-educated women for hundreds of years.
also i would seriously take a hit on taxes to pay for cats to go to college courses but thats only my opinion
>>7620978
>novelists
who cares
might have taken you seriously if you mentioned Sappho
>>7621458
go back to reddit
>>7621460
The Edible Woman, The Handmaid's Tale and The Blind Assassin are classic. The MadAddam series isn't her best work but they're still pretty fun reading.
The fact that her best work speaks mainly to women is linked to the fact that she's not considered a world-class writer. Dwell on that.
>>7621469
stop killing my western empire with your biased shit brained interpretation of history
>>7621483
>On /lit/
>Complaining about terms "the arts" invented
Ok kid
>>7621491
are you upset retard can you even do algebra keep living in your autistic little fantasy worlds through your "literature"
>>7620996
>you're argument that grils can right
>>7621494
2/10 try reading more.
>>7621463
Which is why there are some, but less, great works by women. Less educated women, less good novels, pretty simple to me. Since more women are getting educated, more women are writing brilliant novels.
I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.
I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.
Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.
>>7621463
>7621507
And for what it's worth I've read George Eliot, I've read Jane Austen, I've read the Brontes. They're just not as good as the best books by men. They just aren't.
>>7621503
you try reading more you fuckwit do you think that language isnt represenative? fucking stupid arts kids are worth less than women at least some women can learn science
>>7621513
>By any measure
Black men weren't the subject of sexism...
>>7621000
?
Middlemarch is the best novel ever written in English.
Tolstoy is the greatest novelist in any language.
Joyce is the greatest prose writer in any language.
>>7621513
the retard art kids argument is that women are grown in a world that hurdles them into the actions they take through institutionalized visions of what a woman is and how they should behave but it doesnt fucking matter because behaving that way isnt less equal than anything else and equality doesnt exist between anyone let alone enormous categories of individuals on a whole its so fucking stupid the whole argument is fucking stupid
>>7621522
>blacks emerging from slavery and hated by everyone
>do things
>rich white women subtly dissuaded from being manly
>do nothing
you really don't understand do you
>>7621530
agree
strongly recommend this video to feminists whose entire framework of human activity is "people will do things when their benevolent daddy gender correctly prods and coaxes them to do things by making it easy to do them"
develop some agency and bake me a pie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE
>>7621513
>There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that.
Here is the flaw in your assumption. How can there be a great female composer when a woman, seeking to be a composer, is discouraged in her first attempts and not taken seriously? Any woman of the kind you describe would have notions of composing stomped out of them by their family and friends, to be replaced with 'feminine' ideals such as entertaining others and starting a family. Even if she got past this, the big old boys club of classical music composition would not have accepted a female prodigy with open arms in the time period you describe.
Black folks might have actually benefitted from their second-class citizen status: they were beneath notice. No one cared what they were doing out in the barn til 2am with their old beat up instruments, so no one discouraged them or forced them to stop. By the time notice was taken, the movement was established, and it had momentum.
You need to see past your own bias to understand the restrictive nature of white society in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was bad for men too.
>>7621513
How much have you got to back up this "women aren't driven to improvise or compose" narrative?
Especially weighted against sociopolitical biases of the times.
>I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that.
You literally just agreed that they wouldn't have been taken seriously had they had any creative output and are now blaming their lack of creative output on their gender?
This is some serious circular shit.
>Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music.
They created it in their own communities, and it became successful only after white people discovered it. We both know that the vast number of jazz musicians died in poverty, as drug addicts.
Women didn't have an insular community with which to develop a music scene. They existed in relation to their husbands.
I think your argument is a bit of a stretch.
>>7621562
>read a post directly responding to your implied criticism
>make that criticism in response
"I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well."
"I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well."
"I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well."
Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials. But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper. Male conspiracy cannot explain all female failures. I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant. Genius is not checked by social obstacles: it will overcome. 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.
>>7621567
>Women didn't have an insular community with which to develop a music scene. They existed in relation to their husbands.
confirmed for knowing nothing of history, but making assumptions backward from your perennial oppression narrative
women's associations were one of the most interesting and thriving cultures of 19th and early 20th century europe
you know what killed them?suffrage
Women evolved to take dick and make babies. Their attempts at anything else are infantile and second-rate.
>>7621570
Your reasoning was flawed at its foundation by faulty assumptions. I thought pointing this out using little words might help you see the error in your argument. Clearly you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and repeat 'nopenope' until the thread dies, so I will allow you to do so in ignominy.
>>7621577
>"women were great until they wanted the vote"
You've answered OP brilliantly
>>7620946
*wu
>>7621607
cows graze, women fuck, men vote
If anything the oppression females went through should have promoted the creation of great literature. Suffering, oppression, etc have fueled a lot of lit in the last. One anon even said Canada hasn't made any good lit because Canada is too cozy. We have nothing to spark that creativity. And it shows because the only lit that gets published here is written by natives.
>>7621620
ondaatje is GOAT son
>>7621620
It did. It's called feminist literature. As everyone on here keeps saying, it's studied a lot at universities nowadays. There's a reason for that. It's not aimed at you though. You probably wouldn't agree with it. Strange, that.
>>7621312
Shit list, pleb
>>7621620
>oppression
>oh no I have to sweep up a home and raise children and not fight in a war
Cunts had it so good but they got tricked into wanting wageslave jobs working their lives away while their wombs sour
>>7621635
make a better one m8
>>7621635
okie doke, please enlighten
>>7621620
Women in the West are no longer oppressed and haven't been oppressed in a long time. They also don't suffer from the same kind of guilt that some Catholics and Jews do. That's why they aren't very good at making art.
>>7621641
H.D.
Bachmann
Lispector
Ana María Matute
Sexton
Cixous
Tsvetaeva
Akhmatova
>>7621647
Unlike men, who have always been oppressed, continue to be oppressed, and make great art all day errday
>>7621518
Damn straight
>>7621669
Men are not oppressed but I reckon having to fight all the wars is inspirational in some way.
>>7621652
Can attest to Lispector. Can't speak for the others
>>7621680
Yeah, modern literature is generally defined as pre-war or post-war for this reason.
Poetry of the first world war was pretty great.
This isn't an argument that can lead you to "women can't write".
>>7621513
>women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently
>hardly any women improvise ... The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less.
>good at playing
>able to be good at composing in improvisation
That's like saying that because you're a good actor you'll be a good playwright. I think the facts you stated could just as easily suggest that women learn how to emulate and react to music that has been written by other, but that they don't fundamentally speak the language.
>>7621800
I think that was his point buddy. That because X and Y, women can't into art.
>>7620868
I hate don't hate women, I hate people. Yeah, that's right. Fuck you.
>>7621971
Oh for fucks sake, disregard typo I'm drunk because I hate people
I hate women because they won't have sex with me.
>>7621988
this is actually valid. theyre withholding a primal urge from you. the need to breed you could say.
>>7621988
>what is prostitution
>>7621632
Most "feminist lit" is really feminist political theory. What are the great works of literary fiction inspired by women's suffrage?
>>7622030
I think i have a serious problem. I prefer sex with prostitutes because the fact that they dont want to fuck me but have to for money turns me on so fucking much.
>>7622042
>what is self-worth
>>7621592
it's not his reasoning, it's this guy's:
https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeister.dp.html
>>7622033
We've been over this. The same way that most black authors write about black suffering, most depressed people write about depression, most war vets will write about the war, the cause of a writer's suffering is what drives them to produce their art.
Most of the women listed in this thread were inspired by women's movements.
>>7622051
Something I don't have apparently...
>>7620941
But there are more great male writers than great women writers
>>7622163
What do you suppose this says about women?
>>7622177
That yes, they do frequently and decently write, but they don't have the same artistic drive or genius that men do. This phenomenon is true in every medium of artistic expression. Take painting for example: while other forms of art can be said to have been inaccessible to women because of their lack of schooling and lower social status, they were allowed to paint, and did so frequently. Despite their massive amounts of free time and unlimited opportunities to paint, there are almost 0 "great" female painters. This mediocrity comes from woman's role in society as someone who is to be protected and doesn't have to support themselves. Women lack the desperate drive to prove themselves and find their purpose in life that is inherent in men, because they already have a purpose: raising a family. Meanwhile, man's only purpose has been to impregnate and protect/support women, a role that shows man's expendability. Because of their temporary and relatively unimportant societal roles, men are forced to struggle to distinguish themselves from the rest of their sex. While women can always fall back on getting married and raising a family with a husband to support her, men have no such luxury. It is through these struggles that men have produced nearly all great contributions to civilization.
>>7622337
And the fact that you see women that way has nothing to do with how you view art by a woman? Like even though you view them as inferior, you can still evaluate their art objectively? And the fact that your view is actually pretty common, which contributes to the way people perceive women's art, none of this has anything to do with why female writers and artists weren't, until recently, considered on the same level as men?
Nah I guess everyone is rigidly objective about judgements and women are inferior because they just are, and the fact that there are so many incredible female writers and artists nowadays and the fact that young women are beating men in education and their early careers is just a global feminist conspiracy. That makes perfect sense.
>>7622362
I don't view them as inferior, I view them as different.
>>7621513
>women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative
That's really it. I don't think you understand the importance of receiving support and encouragement and being taken seriously. Heck, the black men creating blues and jazz probably had their peers around them get excited about the new thing, encourage them, adapt it further, turn it into a thing. The peers and family around middle-class young girls strongly encouraged them to learn to play Für Elise prettily and elegantly for the dinner guests because that's feminine and that's how you'll snag a husband, now stop with your weird clanking and get back to practising proper songs. it wasn't really about music for the women, it was because an elegant woman was supposed to play something, and also be able to have an understanding of art, do needlework, that sort of thing.
>>7621543
>blacks emerging from slavery and hated by everyone
>do things
They weren't hated by other blacks. They had the support of their families, peers, community.
>>7621481
>The Handmaid's Tale
Dreck
>The fact that her best work speaks mainly to women is linked to the fact that she's not considered a world-class writer. Dwell on that.
Makes sense to me. If one refuses to speak to half the world, one will never be world class. If she were actually talented she'd manage to speak to both men and women.
>>7620868
I don't hate them but I never particularly enjoyed books by women. Hoping that O'Connor will change that.
>>7621592
>>7621592
The reasoning is sound.
>>7622814
>>>7621513
>>women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative
>That's really it. I don't think you understand the importance of receiving support and encouragement and being taken seriously.
Granting you're right, that for women tribal support is the necessary base for any action, you must see that the same is not true for men.
For women, encouragement is absolutely necessary.
Not so for men. Myself I have been prodded to greater efforts in athletics and academics precisely by the doubt of my coaches and professors.
Men welcome adversity.
Women are cowards. Generally.
>>7621638
This.
What feminists complain about as opression is actually protection.
>>7620868
They do not want to have sex with me.
>>7623362
Tell that to DFW or Cormac McCarthy. Men have been considered world-class for writing heavily male-skewed novels for years.
>>7620868
They can't fuck them all. That's why.
>>7620868
White Teeth is a pretty good novel. I don't think any of her other novels have compared to it. Sure it was a bit sprawling and all over the place but I can appreciate an ambitious novel like this. Also I have no problem with female authors, it just so happens that outside of Woolf there has never been a great one.
>>7620868
you're thinking of /pol/
>>7623464
But they actually matter
>>7621562
>is discouraged in her first attempts and not taken seriously?
You think this never happens to men? It does. They ignore it and persevere. If you need everyone to pat your back while you're pursuing greatness, you wont get far. And if you really need that, you're kind of pathetic.
>Black folks might have actually benefitted from their second-class citizen status: they were beneath notice. No one cared what they were doing out in the barn til 2am with their old beat up instruments, so no one discouraged them or forced them to stop. By the time notice was taken, the movement was established, and it had momentum.
I simply cannot fathom that you believe this. Being told that you are basically subhuman and of inferior intelligence somehow does not discourage black folks from pursuing greatness, but being told that something is unfemnine discourages women? You're not making a good case for women. Actually, if what you say is true, which I doubt, it proves that women are unbelievably frail beings.
>>7620978
>>george eliot
>>best novelist the english language has seen
More like second rate Dickens.
>>7621632
>There's a reason for that.
Which is?
>>7623464
>women don't like DFW
Stop reading click bait websites and talk to actual well-read women. I know plenty of women who have read Infinite Jest or his essays and dig DFW. The whole anti-DFW thing is a weird English department meme, but well read STEM girls tend to like him.
>>7623812
I know women who like it, I know women who don't. Women are more likely to read men than men are to read women.
>>7624348
That's because the preference for male writers has nothing to do with the gender of the reader, and everything to do with quality.
>>7621513
You seem to know the history and still deny the facts. Shame on you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zFnyEe3nE
>>7624460
>That's because the preference for male writers has nothing to do with the gender of the reader
I never suggested that women prefer male readers.
>>7620961
Heyo Reddit.
>>7623812
>talk to actual well-read women
>The whole anti-DFW thing is a weird English department meme
I guess the english department probably aren't into books.
>but well read STEM girls tend to like him.
>well read
>STEM
it's really easy to troll threads like this, but you can't even do that properly.
>>7621010
There would be no Austen without Richardson and Fielding
>>7623812
>well read
>STEM
>>7621312
>Actually worthwhile:
>ctrl+f virginia woolf
>ctrl+f mary shelley
>ctrl+f brontes
>>7621513
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EUT_AXV1MU
>>7623716
lmao
>>7620868
>reading the Bell Jar
>the first few dozen pages reveal an utmost superficial character
Will it get better or is this the mountaintop of the new woman? I can not get my head around the irony of the kitchen being the instrument of her ultimate empowerment being self destruction.
>>7625027
plath's big defining moment of pathos is "i can't believe i can't fuck ALL the chads"
>I sat under the tree of infinite opportunity berries in the shape of penises
>And I watched one by one as they fell to the ground and withered up all penisy
>First fell Federico, the Latino who rammed my shitter while I was totaled at my sister's wedding
>Then fell Chesterford, the British gentleman whose balls I licked because he had lots of money
>And I sat and wondered, I can't possibly suck all these cock berries, there are just too many cock-flavored good times to be had
>And as I sat dithering on which boner to ride, I ironically missed the opportunity to ride several more boners..
-- The Ball-squeezins' Jar, aka Sylvia "Monster Fuck" Plath
>>7625066
Don't pretend like you didn't relate to that metaphor.
>>7625027
it gets more interesting when she is on the hospital ward, then i felt sad for what a shitty person she is instead of mostly irritated. but it is extremely hard to relate because she is fully deranged and out of touch with reality. so edith is abject at best. i'm not sure she has any redeeming qualities, maybe makes a few interesting observations. i don't think she does a single good thing in the book.
the character contrasts very strongly with holden for me.
