American Lit professor refers to western canon as mansplaining

>American Lit professor refers to western canon as mansplaining

>refers to the greeks as manspreading

Are they wrong?

Women have the greatest writers, just look at buzzfeed

At no point did Plato or Heracletus write about the peculiarities of men spreading their legs to air their balls, so I will go on a wild guess and say yes.

>Veeky Forums user makes a thread about something that doesn't happen

I hope you stood up and called him/her a revisionist, cultural Marxist.

Not OP but, I have seen this happen.
It is more common for them to make the Old dead White men joke, though.

They are just jokes though. Its not like you don't study them all the same.

I can accept the idea that the cannon is conersation among educated western men conversing about art and life as they perceive it and as it affects them.

I can accept that the notion of cannon need not imply a singular tradition of supreme authority by which all other writing need be judged, and that there can be multiple cannons built around different identities and concerns.

What irks me is the idea that a cannon, in this case the educated European male cannon, existing de facto as the product of its conversations, as arbitrated by those who perceive themselves as stake holders in its conversation and possess the intellectual or material means to influence its bounds, being artificially gerrymandered by non-stake holding forces to better serve a-artistic political ideals alien to the existential and artistic ends of its members.

By all means exclude Joyce or Eliot from your cannon on the grounds that they do not speak to you or for you, but don't try to thought control others out of revering them cause it means your pet author won't get enough eye time among the general populace

That's where you're wrong user:

Heraclitus Fragment 30:
The world, an entity out of everything, was created by neither gods nor men, but was, is and will be eternally a man on a park bench, at one measure spreading his legs to relieve his testicles of sweat, then at the next measure yielding, once they are dry. Sweat... dry. Sweat... dry. This is the happening.

>cannon

Just random jokes signifying nothing ?

>American
>Literature

I love that image. My boss was pining for the good old days because "things were so much less violent back then." I told her that by most estimates a 10% mortality rate as a result of rampant murder in the High Middle Ages is a conservative figure, and that public executions were one of the main forms of communal entertainment until the invention of the printing press.

Why are normies so historically illiterate?

As stupid as the word is, and generally used for ridiculous things, it actually does apply for a reasonable big part of the western canon. Why would something as obvious even trigger you?

The much more ridiculous thing is the existence of an "American Lit professor"

Idk Trevor, idk

>can accept the idea that the cannon is conersation
>cannon
>conersation

Your boss sounds like an exception, outside of /pol/aks glorifying the past, I had yet to talk to anyone who is THAT ignorant about the good ol' days. People are usually ignorant about shit like knights and chivalry but the violence is pretty well known.

Centrist white woman narcissism is poisoning everything and nobody can do anything

>violence and death is bad!

>I can except the idea that the cannon is conersation among educated western men conversating about art and life as they percept it and as it effects them.

>I can except that the notion of cannon need not implie a singulate tradition of supreme authoriality by which all other writing need be judged, and that there can be multiplied cannons built around differing identities and concentrations.

>What erks me is the Ides of March that a cannon, in this case the edutainment European mail cannon, existing de fucto as the production of its conversions, as added by those who percept themselves as steak holders in its conversion and process the intelligent or maternal meanies to internalize its bonds, being artificedly jerrymondered by non-steak holding forks to better serve a-artistic political ides of March extraterrestrial to the existential and artificed ends of its private members.

>By all meanies excogitate Joyce or Eliot from your cannon on the floor that they do not speak to you nor for you, but don't try to Thought Police others out of rivering them cause it means your domestic-animal author won't get enough ocular temporality among the generalized population.

Fixed some of that grammar for you, buddy.

I was thinking of minority or double majoring in english, are uni english departments really this bad or is it just memeing

Nowhere did anyone imply that, at least, I only stated that my boss seemed to think the past was "good" because it was less violent, and that the latter part of the assertion is palpably false. We were only talking about what happened, not what ought to have happened. Is that a picture of you?

I work door to door, and I meet someone who wants to go back to the good ol' days of near medieval levels of technology etc. at least once a week.
Then I sell them DirectTV.

Man, USA is really as fun as the media makes it out to be.