Why should I, an intellectual female...

>intellectual

i take it with a grain of salt whenever someone describe themselves as "intelectual"

What male author understood women the most?

Chekov

Melvin Udall

Or Tolstoy

>women
>human condition
Kek

>not recognizing trolling
You're not an "intellectual", are you?

i´ve never claimed i was one

Look, I'm a girl, I like philosophy and history and literature. I mostly read stuff by men because that's generally the best out there. Call it patriarchy, or whatever, but the reality is more men had a chance to create in all the history of humanity so there's more good stuff by men.

Murakami (IQ84), or Tolstoy.

bukowski

>history
>mostly men
That's nearly impossible if you're doing more than pop reading.

This.

Yeah okay sure.

Well, in the other things I mentioned (philosophy and literature).

Elliot Rodger

That depends on the period too, and means you're not focusing on big turning points in history and missing long periods and some major counterarguments.

What do you mean?

he means you're overfocused on Russian political lit and modernism and the Greeks.

There are and historically have been enough talented female authors to spend your whole life studying if you're actually interested and don't just want the big names, men made popular by men.

OP that's a valid critique, go right ahead and let that bullshit miss you.

Marina Carr, Daphne Du Maurier, Elizabeth Cary, Louise Erdrich

Schopenhauer

>woman
>human

Listen to me, I'm a woman. I exclusively read men because I know 99% of my sex is retarded. The only one worth reading is Jane Austen, a woman who knew her place.

>Listen to me, I'm a woman.
Stopped there

>the human condition
Stupid meme. There is no such thing.

>he means you're overfocused on Russian political lit and modernism and the Greeks.
No I certainly do not when Catherine the Great conversed with Voltaire, HD is the best modernist (and modern philosophy is largely rooted in female salons), and the Greeks have Sappho and Hipparchia (mentioned above by user) and Arete of Cyrene. I mean the fact she does not know those, as you don't, means that she has significant gaps in basics across several domains.

Good, you should never listen to a woman if she isn't your wife, and even then only in domestic matters.

That's not a book, and Mrs Beeton was an incompetent angel who nobody should read.

You should be illiterate.

Yeah, that's the reason why literary geniuses are almost universally men. Unequal opportunity.

>Yeah, that's the reason why literary geniuses are almost universally men. Unequal opportunity.
>literary geniuses
>men
You mean dykes and faggots right? There's the odd fetishist, but straight men are hard to find in canon except as bores.

Joyce

Let me guess. Your idea of literary geniuses is informed by your English undergrad, which you started post 2005, right?

But I never said I don't read female authors, just that there are more male authors, so I read more men.

It certainly plays a part. Even granting the distribution of IQ there are still women in history, in that top percentile, that would have been held back by society. Just like there would be poor men in the same boat.

Either you're bait, or you're serious. If the former, meh, and if the latter, I feel really sorry for you.

No, it's informed by canon. Homer and Sappho are paired in Greek as The Poet and Poetess. There's a poetess so popular in Greek that even though pretty much all that remains of her work is a poem about cucumbers, we can reconstruct her meter and style in its entirety it was so copied, and without that, you just failed to understand Aristophanes, who brought about the death of Socrates.

Dryden's made poet laureate, but contemporary to him is the Earl of Rochester who fucked everything and everyone prefers, and the King of England begged to make his councillor before the Lords, after expelling him for the umpteenth time for writing a play so disgusting and likely to corrupt morals, all we know of it is the title, The Isle of Dogs. He's in plays and sets the tone for high decadent aesthetics in English Literature until Wilde. Dryden on the other hand is best remembered for translations of other, gayer, people's poetry.

This is not an unknown or unobserved trend. Even if you just read Plato, like the intellectual you probably think you are, you'd know how many dialogues open with "Socrates has given up being gay for my rival, the qtier boipussi of the gods, Alcibiades, in favour of being gay for knowledge... no, no, really, I'm not lying about it this time"

Contemporaries to people like George Sand, HD, and many others even before the modern period recognised female and male genius, and not many of them are straight.

Proust? Gay and liked poking rats with nails. Wilde? Gay. Joyce? Fart porn. Coleridge? Lesbian vore porn and liked to be whipped. Aristotle? Ponyplay. He's the pony. Caesar? Gay for pay. Burroughs? Faggot. Woolf? Gay. Ausonius (the poet who came up with gather ye rosebuds while ye may, used to teach Latin meter poetry since the 4th C AD)? Half those rosebuds are gay. Hans Christen Andersen? Bisexual forever alone. DH Lawrence? Gay, despite being fascist. Baldwin? Gay. Beauvoir? Gay pedo. Sartre? Pedo. Djuna Barnes? Gay.

The only ones in that where they're not geniuses, they're pedos, and they're probably the authors you meme about the most since you'd have to know something about canon to talk about any of the rest.

I should explain the first bit because you're dumb: Sappho is gay, so is Socrates.

Are you the same faggot from last week that was arguing that Mishima was gay based on nothing but his fiction?

>male homosexuals or even just fetishists are actually female

You're a fucking retard.

>>male homosexuals or even just fetishists are actually female
>You mean dykes and faggots right? There's the odd fetishist, but straight men are hard to find in canon except as bores.
Do you think faggots, fetishists, and women are straight men?
No, I'm not a Mishimaboo, but I was pretty sure he was gay. He's memed a lot here, so it could be any number of faggots who told you reasons why they think he's gay. I think board consensus is he's gay. I don't know if that's trufax, and I don't know if his fiction's gay either. I thought his books are mostly about lifting?

The topic at hand is why literary geniuses are almost all men.

Being a homosexual man or a man with another paraphilia including transsexualism does not mean that one is not a man.

Your argument is thus moot.

Worse, the half dozen women you mentioned are totally eclipsed by the hundreds of male geniuses in the canon.

Your AIDS dementia is preventing you from properly engaging in the discussion, you faggot.

underrated

Not bait.

Then I feel sorry for you.

You don't have to "know your place". I'm a pretty sexist guy and that still doesn't sit right with me. Women aren't less than men , we're playing totally different games. Just embrace your femininity but don't think less of yourself.

Why are all the men who read sexists? It's not fair.

In that entire list of names there's only two respectable authors.

>The topic at hand is why literary geniuses are almost all men.
Only they're not normal men, and there are more women of influence since the start of Western Tradition. And being a homosexual man in Greece was considered to be making a woman of oneself if you were penetrated. Same in the Roman context. That's why Plutarch's Life of Caesar talks about him being called Queen Caesar, and Caesar calling himself "the wife".

And yes, it did mean you were not a man if you were tried for it and someone proved you had been the receptive partner. That's why people bribed others and killed others to not be testified against in court, and why accusing Socrates of laconizing was such a big deal. The woman whose meter Aristophanes is copying would be considered more worthy of life and literature by the Greeks than anyone proven gay in court- the woman could at least still speak in court if called, while the faggot could not.

You're trying to say the Greeks were wrong, and erase the females I did list, and the fact that your straight ass is never going in the genius stakes. You're not sucking enough cock to be in the range of the genius men. You're straight enough you're in the range of the subnormal men who never made history like Sappho.

>female
>intellectual

Which two of those did you find respectable?

No need to white knight to try to get into my pants over Veeky Forums.
You shouldn't. I'm one of the few woman who understand that woman aren't as intellectually equipped as men. That's a pro for me and has set me free. I'm married to a brilliant man, I have given him two beautiful children and my life is a happy one.

Can I marry one of your daughters when they are 14?

You are embarrassingly naive

You're embarrassingly ignorant of the history of literature and the meaning of your insults.

14 is too young. But I'll defer the issue to my husband.

>14 is too young. But I'll defer the issue to my husband.
>not Catholic
DROPPED
R
O
P
P
E
D

>You shouldn't. I'm one of the few woman who understand that woman aren't as intellectually equipped as men. That's a pro for me and has set me free. I'm married to a brilliant man, I have given him two beautiful children and my life is a happy one.
Nice LARP. If that were true, you wouldn't be here.

>I'm one of the few woman who understand that woman aren't as intellectually equipped as men.
Clearly that applies to you, but not everyone, since these things are all in averages and some women are just as intellectually capable as the top tier man. You're pretty obviously baiting though.

You tell me how I'm supposed to break US law so she could marry someone. You don't seem too bright.

It's why she thinks Austen is the only female author of note.

Fair point. Understanding is a two way street. Women will never understand honor, duty, and sport like a man does, and I'm sure there are things men will never understand about the female experience. Also details about what these unspecified men don't understand about women would be nice.

If you require an understanding of sub categorizing understanding the human condition you'd find that just as men don't capture women's full experience, a white woman wouldn't capture a black woman's experience
beyond this, a black woman's writing in modern america wouldn't nearly be the same individual experience as a black woman living in 18th century ottoman rule.
This hypothetical 18th century black woman writer also wouldn't have the same understanding of life as her neighbor, also a black 18th century ottoman, but you'll see I hope that you've been looking at the increasingly narrow experiences of demographics and then individuals, which of course aren't shared, and if your goal is to get the 'human condition' (something that's universal among humans) it's more important to find a writer who can express themselves well rather than requiring an understanding of specific's groups

If your ability to identify with them is reduced by their male perspective then it probably reduces how successful they'll be able to express themselves to you, so if this isn't a troll thread and you really have a difficult time understanding what they mean because of their perspective then you should read something else, but it happens that historical writing is quite male dominated
If you'd like you can try to go back and re-write hegel, kant, and so on from a female perspective but unless your interested in doing it for your own sake, I don't think there's much demand for such a translation among any consumer group

>Women will never understand honor, duty, and sport like a man does
Why do you think that? I understand honour, and duty to oneself, one's country and one's family. I wish I were born male so I could properly fulfill those things.

It's not US law.
I only said I wanted a Catholic waifu. Nothing about Austen, who was Protestant. A Low Church Anglican too. Might as well marry a pagan who drinks too much tea. No thanks.

>I only said I wanted a Catholic waifu. Nothing about Austen, who was Protestant. A Low Church Anglican too. Might as well marry a pagan who drinks too much tea. No thanks.
I'm just pointing out the woman's clear lack of "brightness" as you say. Nothing about marrying Austen.

I tell you what though, I'd marry Mary Shelley. I'm sure she's better things to drink than tea.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, I'm saying understanding of those virtues comes naturally to men; meaning their perspective on those topics will most likely be more nuanced and cohesive compared to that of a woman (who can only imitate these experiences). The body leads the self, and a body that has a fraction of the innate strength another has will always have a different experience and perspective. Not saying one perspective is better than another but it's absurd to act like they are the same or that the two (or more) can fully understand each other.

Then don't. Just keep making them sandwiches though

Arthur Schopenhauer

London?

You shouldn't, the Y chromosome is rapidly shrinking and all hope for male intellectualism is lost.

>Do what you want Mr. intellectual female.

Died

>when you're so invested in rainbowashing to bolster your inferiority complex over your own utter lack of personal accomplishments that you start spouting it on Veeky Forums

Embarassing. Okay. You're a loser. You're a faggot. Just because some faggots are successful writers does not make you successful. You're still a loser. And at the end of the day, they're still faggots, and so are you. You're a faggot and you don't even have the successful writer thing going. The truly pathetic thing is that you try to leech odd their success like a parasite. Sorry, their limelight does not shine in you. You'll always be a loser, and a faggot. The funny part is that most of the figures you paint with a rainbow brush weren't even homosexual and you're just projecting your faggotry onto them in a desperate search for some measure of self-worth. That search is futile. You aren't worth anything.

t. tranny who will someday contract HIV by eating a pozzed load out of his girlfriend's ass

Nothing wrong with pozzing an unsuspecting neg hole every other special occasion.

I think the point is that the tranny is getting cucked user

My point still stands.

>when you try to argue against recorded history
You know, if you think Plutarch's rainbow washing, you're going to freak when you see all the people he influenced. It's not Plutarch's fault the people who needed Koine were faggots like Caesar and Alexander. If you want to change history with your tears, feel free to try. I doubt Caesar will stop playing Ganymede nor Alexander give up having many cupbearers.
Sorry history hurts your feefees so hard, but there's nothing anyone can do about it now.

WE WUZ QUEENZ AN FUCKED SHEEIT

>. Aristotle? Ponyplay. He's the pony
How did you get this from Aristotle?

The funniest part is that Plutarch is taught less now you're being overrun by ignorant and nowhere near as awesome faggots. The death of classical education is exactly why you can't read him making faggot jokes about the people whose tradition you want to belong to. If you got that classical education back, you'd already be inured to the great faggotry of great men.

He let a hooker ride him like a horse, and it's brought up by everyone around him whenever they could. Drawings, prints, and coins of it are pretty common to tradition. Google it if you need to.

I agree. I think highly exceptional females should be educated but that they're rarer than the world thinks.
I'm Catholic. I like Austen for other reasons apart from her religious views. Touché on the pagan point.
No, I'd rather be in hell than London. I'm from Ohio, born in Poland. That's all I'll say.

>I'm Catholic. I like Austen for other reasons apart from her religious views. Touché on the pagan point.
You might be but you're not nubile.

>no need to white knight
Shut your goddamn mouth whore, A man can white knight when a man wants to white knight, it's not up to the woman.

shit just got all rape of the lock

Tits or GTFO Jezebel no should have taught you to read

Idk. Why would I read a woman, she clearly doesn't understand the male condition.
>This is sarcasm the human condition is largely the same and gender only provides a subtly different hue like indigo vs royal blue.

No duh, I said I'm married.
And you just white knighted for a man, must be gay.

>Jezebel
I'd totally fuck Jezebel too. Not just any Jezebel though. When she has the full court make up on and is about to walk out the window. That Jezebel, and maybe the one soon after.

>No duh, I said I'm married.
You're also too old by virtue of being here.