Writing in another persective

Isn't kind of "patriarchal" in a way we're not supposed to approve of anymore?

>Isn't kind of "patriarchal" in a way we're not supposed to approve of anymore?
Why on earth would anyone read the Greeks if they weren't willing to tolerate, if not approve of, patriarchal ideas? I'd be locking myself out of the majority of human literary and philosophical thought if I limited my reading by gender or outdated ideas. And Book 22 is satisfying, on a base level, to anyone who appreciates some well written bloodshed.

>both want to survive, grow, pass DNA
You know besides the suicidal, infantile, and infanticidal/infertile. I enjoy sex, but sex isn't essentially related to reproduction. Motivations toward evolutionary mechanisms are incidental; only the hedonistic matrix around those mechanisms should be properly regarded as the single motivator. Obviously from there you get sublimation of the basic infantile drive. Bearing children is one such sublimation, but not a universal one.

You're really fumbling with the Socratic aloofness.

Okay, I was wrong to make assumptions.

Please explain why the idea of different intrinsic motivations for each sex is so wrong

What, you think girls don't like or can't appreciate books from the male perspective, or from different times?

talking to the other gender makes me anxious to be honest

Not them, but I don't think motivations for humans are all that different. What do you think us women have as our motivators, if not similar ones to men (for that matter, what do you say the motivators for men are?)?

Judging from my admittedly limited experience, yes. If you go on goodreads (which has a mostly female userbase) most of the negative reviews of "old" books complain about the various ____isms and instances of political correctness. I've never really known guys to kick up a fuss over this sort of thing. In general women seem to be a lot more concerned with political correctness than men.

Actually come to think of it one of my (male) TAs in college complained about Hemingway's "bigotry" which was somehow intrinsically linked to his being a "European" male.

Part of the problem is that I know very few people of either gender in real life who read books.

If a universal human drive exists, it exists as an ontological component of the human psyche; it would be an intrinsic part of human existence. Saying that a woman has a different basic set of drives than a man is saying that her consciousness is fundamentally distinct. This is an absurd claim. You can claim that men and women diverge in their respective avenues of pursuing a drive, but you must cede to some basic universality. This is crucial. You haven't yet said exactly what qualitatively marks the difference between man-drives and woman-drives. You assumed a difference and at the same time conceded to the impossibility of ever knowing if there is a difference.

*instances of political incorrectness

Say you got a stable of horses, and at first they all eat their hay. Then a few quit eating, their appetites vanish overnight, they starve. You call up the horse doctor, he comes to your stable and tells you the horses that starved were diseased, faulty.
You're saying those horses didn't want to eat when they were faulty instead, you're citing outliers. Of course the suicidal want to live, just like the infantile want to grow. They can't though, for whatever reason, more complex than anything a horse has ever dealt with, but that's beside the point. Point is, any biological entity, be it a human being or a horse or a tree, is there to reproduce. Now I do think, and this addresses the 'but what about the celibate? what about priests and nuns and eunuchs?' questions, that 'growth' has a much larger part in these 'universal' motivations in humans than anything else that's known about, and by 'growth' I mean physical AND 'spiritual' progress or retreat, it's willful change, it's ego, 'soul.' Guys and gals got it. Everybody has to compensate for something for the sake of reproduction or growth or survival, which is still straightforward, despite all modern bullshit (or that of any other age, which amounts to the necessities of society-at-large).

That last bit is a bit of an issue for me too, so I really can only speak for myself when I say that it's certainly not the case for me. My favourite books are things like Heart of Darkness, The Odyssey, Desolation Angels, near about all of the Russians (Tolstoy, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov etc.), Hemingway, Murakami, Orwell, Sartre, The Tale of the Heike, Journey to the West, etc. etc. etc. all of which are more or less male centric, and mostly by men.
Although, now I think about it, the only girls I know who read all read YA because anything else is either too hard or too triggering, and I don't know any guys who read at all (in my age group, at least. I'm hoping that'll improve when I go to university this year).

I don't know what a woman's motivations might be, which is why I made the thread

Consider this

Until only recently (last hundred years) with the feminist movement did women become stronger in their fight for rights

When men have been fighting government oppression world wide for as long as history has been recorded (Russia from tsars, Nazi Germany from WW1, US from Britain, etc. further than medieval times)

Why?

Women now will not have the same motivations as women before, because motivation is a function of current society, but it will always be different then men

>Point is, any biological entity, be it a human being or a horse or a tree, is there to reproduce.
No biological thing exists in order to do anything. You're ascribing a normative reality to a descriptive one with no reason. There is no reason for a horse to reproduce - its progenitors simply have all done so up until that point.
>Of course the suicidal want to live
Hogwash. The suicidal wants to cease existing.

>go to goodreads
>search for The Odyssey
>filter reviews by two stars
>6 women, of which 2 was obviously upset about muh misogyny, 1 kinda mentioned it and the remaining 3 found it boring
>3 men, of which 1 complained about "women = sex objects, men = dominants" and 2 found it boring
>1 unknown who found it boring
I honestly think it's a case of more women using Goodreads making them more noticeable and the feminist movement favouring females thus pushing female feminist reviewers to the front while hiding the males further back.

>No biological thing exists in order to do anything
Poison. You need foundational assumptions in order to 'win' both biologically and spiritually. Do you want to lose?? Sure, no normative reality can ever be forced, and no consensus can ever be reached, but that's means nothing just as well. So take a leap of faith, make sense of what you can feel and see, touch something and you can FEEL it, sure, I don't KNOW you can, and to indulge any solipsistic afterthoughts, I don't KNOW you exist, but I'm damn well willing to bet on it. Because why not? It'd be pretty goddam boring and depressing if nothing existed to do anything, but even if it did, we'd all be free to invent our own meanings, and I choose to see it as something to be won, something a human being can progress through or retreat from at the benefit or determent of the soul.
>The suicidal wants to cease existing.
Maybe at the conscious level, but I think, and I could certainly be wrong, there are 'absolutes' within the subconscious, which serve survival, growth and reproduction. It's the conscious wherein we deviate.

>When men have been fighting government oppression world wide for as long as history has been recorded (Russia from tsars, Nazi Germany from WW1, US from Britain, etc. further than medieval times)
Most of these were only a tiny minority, with the rest being easily lead or much starved peasants. It's hardly indicative of how ALL men think. Just a few who actually care. To use the Bolshevik example, the majority were just sick of starving. There were only a minority of ACTUAL revolutionaries, and it was mainly limited to the cities.
>Women now will not have the same motivations as women before, because motivation is a function of current society, but it will always be different then men
Why? Your examples don't apply to the majority of men either.

Not an argument

It's not like women have not partaken in fights against government oppression earlier that the last 100 years. Most notably during the food riots during the french revolution.

And what was your argument? I'm fairly sure I was just rebutting your points. My point is, you just make assertions that either a) aren't backed up by the historic events you cite, or b) are literally just statements with nothing to back them up.
Are you saying that men's motivation in life is to undo unfairness or inequality? Because that's blatantly untrue, even in the examples (most of the Tsars were male, as was the majority of the aristocracy in terms of actually holding power, as were the majority of the upper echelons of the Nazi regime etc.) or that women never cared about that (also untrue, there were women in a lot of revolutions etc. before feminism)? And where do you get your evidence for men and women having different motivations now vs. then? Or different ones at all?

I can argue against your points, but you may also be right

I am glad we are having a civil discussion, but the reason why I made the thread is to learn how to write from a woman's pov

I am thinking of reading diaries

My answer is, just write a POV, and make the person a woman. We're not that different.

To add on, anything else will seem forced. The men who can actually write women well in the first person write a PERSON, not a gender.

>am currently writing a short with POV of a teenage girl
>make a reference once to her sex and later her age
>continue writing as usual because it literally doesn't make a fucking difference unless you're trying to force it

Rly meks me think

You simply need to get out there and talk to women, preferably as both friends and lovers.

There's no way around it.

Girls are super creepy. They enjoy experience. You can still trust them when they speak with honesty. They seem mercurial and unfaithful unless you read beneath the surface. Female inner dialogues are indeed what the authors claim them to be. Whether you find female honesty to be disturbing or not it is up to yourself.

Do not ask them too many questions or else be ready to have your expectations upended. I personally enjoy communication with women but most other guys seem to despise.

...