>>8214872
They were dikes.

read a room of one's own or something

They're all fuck ugly.

>>8214872
you get children when robots and chads ejaculate in your tummy
bourgeois women did write, but personal journals.

How do know that "so many" did? Do you have an actual statistic or is that just your impression?

>>8214944
Jane Austen
Beatrix Potter
Emily Dickinson
Marguerite Yourcenar
Emily Bronte
Virginia Woolf
Zora Neale Hurston
Carson McCullers
Flannery O'Connor

Is there a single great writer whose first name wasn't William?

William Blake
William S. Burroughs
William Faulkner
William Gaddis
William Gass
William Gibson
William Golding
William Shakespeare
William Wordsworth

The list just goes on and on...

>>8214983
9 people is not a trend

>Sappho is a great poet because she is a lesbian, which gives her erotic access to the Muse. Sappho and the homosexual-tending Emily Dickinson stand alone above women poets, because poetry's mystical energies are ruled by a hierach requiring the sexual subordination of her petitioners. Women have achieved more as novelists than as poets because the social novel operates outside the ancient marriage of myth and eroticism.

>>8214994
William Carlos Williams!

Well Jane Austen, if you couldn't tell from her books, was an acrimonious bitch . No decent man would suck his dick in that. Plus guys then, and now, didn't like marrying cunts smarter than they were.

>>8215011
nah.

because you can only be creative in one direction.

women who enjoy scholarly pursuits are almost invariably sterile

>>8214872
>Why did so many notable writers die single or childless?
ftfy

>>8214983
half those writers died young/had chronic illnesses...

>>8214872
Most notable female writers were pretty pro-women's rights and against many societal norms, and so they probably had a hard time finding male partners who weren't... the opposite of all that. That's just one reason though.