Why are men objectively better at writing?

I was talking about people who've defied the rule when given an education outside the system

Christ, leave.

There's an evolutionary advantage for men as a way to increase status, and the creative element fits with European man's nature, so white males developed the craft and are naturally the best at it. There is no such advantage for women, for whom intellectual pursuits hold no evolutionary value or benefit.

Veeky Forums, what are some good female writers?

Evelyn Waugh

They're better at everything, because they have no life*, so they nerd out on things.

*or, to be exact: they have less social life

This. To be a writer it's best to be financially independent which is something that most of women haven't been able to do until recently.

>Evolutionary psychology
Pseudoscience

>t. social scientist

very poor attempt at an explanation

She's great. Same with Sidney Sheldon.

Flannery O'Connor
Carson Mccullers
Virginia Woolf
Dorothy Richardson
Clarice Lispector
Emily Dickinson

>female authors who are not good
Sylvia Plath

May I inquire where retarded people like yourself obtain these opinions that encourage you to disregard obvious realities about human nature and difference? Is this a Sam Harris platform or something else like that, or have the public institutions of white/western society really decayed this much under the post 60s egalitarian delusion?

The most ancient psychological novel (Tale of Genji) was written by a woman

men are objectively better at everything

What do you think evopsych is lol?>May I inquire where retarded people like yourself obtain these opinions that encourage you to disregard obvious realities about human nature and difference?
It comes from not being an internet educated retard.

the anger at evopsych is entirely, and I mean entirely, politically motivated. There isn't a shred of intellectual integrity in the criticisms of it.

This becomes enormously obvious when the same arguments that apply without controversy to animals become hugely contentious when applied to humans, even if the caveat that these tendencies will be mediated by culture is given.

Maybe not objectively better writers. Historically men have fought wars, hunted, traveled, led politics, and developed tech, which just means they had more interesting stories to tell. To where women on the other hand tended to be house wives or live comfortable sedentary lives.

This user's point is a big factor as well. If look at the female authors he samples they all had backgrounds of education/wealth. We're already seeing much more female writing, I just wish it wasn't primarily YA fiction or memoirs, but women tend to lean towards small character driven dramas over large arcing narratives.

Attached: 1520520003975.png (500x775, 416K)

Nah, A good portion of evopsych is bullshit. Some of it is dead accurate, but there's a lot of bullshit to sift through.

I don't deny that but the same is true of many fields, which don't incur anything like the hostility evopsych does, the anger is very obviously ideological in origin.

I don't even care that much about sociobiology, I find it interesting, and think it can probably help explain human behavior, but the lunacy coming from its critics is just another level, they refuse to even consider the ideas. Their idea of the self has had every trace of Darwin religiously scrubbed out.

thanks kind anons

They are the new zealots of the post-Christian, neo-communist equality doctrine. One cannot accept that people or groups are different and better or worse than other people or groups, but must believe that nature can be shunned or overcome and that everyone can by force be brought to equal plane. This is the social virus whites are currently infected with.

I ride the evopsych train, I'm just careful about what I push. I too enjoy fucking with progressives.

>the anger at evopsych is entirely, and I mean entirely, politically motivated.
I don't give two shits about wemen or politics, evopsych's method and epistemological foundations are fucking ridiculous. It's the contemporary version of psychoanalysis and I honestly can't wait for this meme field to die. Steven Pinker in particular should be nailed on a cross.

Evopsych's 'foundation' is that evolution will have had an impact on the behavior and psychology of animals, following the normal logic of natural selection.

Comparing it with the garbage Freud cooked up is absurd

Because the bell curves for men are much wider and flatter relative to the curves for women. What does this mean exactly and why is it so? Well it means that in any given distribution, let's say IQ for example, there will be more men with very low and very high IQs compared to women. The women will by comparison have a much larger degree of near-average IQs, with fewer on the tail ends of being very dumb or very smart. Now I would posit that to be a 'great' writer one must be a genius, something I think most people would agree with, and geniuses tend to have very high IQs in general, regardless of their specialised field. There are other traits but this is certainly one of them. So when we are dealing with billions and billions of humans, across thousands of years, we see that the ones who write the greatest novels (the geniuses) are predominantly men. This bell-curve distribution dynamic is true across any given metric, and thus results in men being the top players at the very pinnacles of all fields. Just think about it; writing, cooking, architecture, sport, art, science, mathematics - the best of the best are always overwhelmingly men.

This leaves the question of how this phenomenon arises. Well to put it simply men are expendable. It is the female of the species that is required to produce children, with men being mostly superfluous. A single man can impregnate many women. Thus there is a pressure for the genomes of women to 'play it safe'. They conserve genes that are proven to be stable, reliable and able to withstand environmental pressures, always returning to a close mean of proven outcomes. Conversely men have no such pressure forcing them to remain mostly within a stable 'no-frills' region of characteristics. Men can thus vary more wildly with the genetic components that account for the biological half of all the gene-environment interactions that govern what a person is, can do and who they are.

Imagine a 10x10 checkerboard with numbers in the squares. You are told to throw a pebble onto the grid. With 100 numbers there's a chance that you'll get a very low number and a chance you could get a very high number. This is the 'male' grid. Now imagine that fences are placed on the grid to lock off the outer rims and the remaining board is 8x8. Sure you're not going to get any very low numbers, but equally you're not going to get high numbers. One is good for consistently getting middling numbers, and one is good for getting the very highest numbers (while also getting the low numbers as a trade off). Obviously genetics is never this black and white - you do get a lot of middling and low end males, and you can get some very high end females, but generally this is a good way to think of it.

Attached: diego_rivera__man_a_528770a.jpg (3020x1260, 3.95M)

Only correct answer

Genius is mostly a male attribute

men experience more suffering, which is the genesis of all worthwhile writing. Women are too coddled and protected.

Is this a bait? I heard she only writes comfy housewife fiction that's very repetitive. Redpill me if I'm mistaken. Which stories should I check out (I just checked and there's a lot).

Most men can not write, you're thinking of smart men (like me)

Yawn!
As a reader & hobbyist writer I've pondered this question some.
To all the SJWs out there, differences between males & females can be empirically proven.

Women tend to be more creative in the creating life department, y'know on account of the whole birth thing.
Whereas men tend to be more creative in the arts/construction/engineering/sciences, based on the fact that well...the overwhelming majority of everything materially created/invented was by men.

Also the publishing industry has been Dominated by females the last few years, eg females are the majority of agents/editors/proofreaders, y'know the staff of the industry.
I believe this imbalance has contributed significantly to the decline in male readership, which is generally attributed to other media, but this can be countered by the male migration to comics/graphic novels.
The reality is, because the industry is predominantly female, material that is appealing to males is often not perceived by said agents/editors

>Also the publishing industry has been Dominated by females the last few years, eg females are the majority of agents/editors/proofreaders, y'know the staff of the industry.

There's no problem with this. Its basically just cleaning up and playing Mommy for men. Its when they start thinking they can do the heavy lifting just as well that things get annoying

That's not true, just look at J.K. Rowling!

Attached: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.jpg (583x438, 49K)

Speak for yourself, I don't like having the best writing being in the past.

I want material that I can relate to, so no sorry it is a problem.

Good writing is universally good. You just want a load of faggot Hemingways. Women can edit just fine and infact its good to have someone with less personal ego in charge of that process. The problem is women not respecting men who deserve respect, once that happens the order is restored

going to tell my daughter this ever night before bed

Dude, that's generous of you. I think that's a pleb-tier 13-yo kind of explanation. Not even logical.
This applies only historically because generally writers of today are awful and even if you were to find few exceptions they would probably be pretty indiscriminate w.r.t. sex.
Simple answer: historically, socio-biological conditions favoured men in pursuing creative work, notably literature, music, technology. Saying more than that would be divination. This holds less true today, there are simply no good writers and men and women reached parity of powerlevel in writing.

Your assessment is mostly correct, but it seems you make female representation in the publishing industry out to be some sort of natural process. It has been in fact pushed in that direction intentionally by the overwhelmingly jewish arbiters now running the industry. They view white men as their enemy and main competition, so they've had an interest in padding themselves with more docile female functionaries and promoting reading material of less interest to white men.

Attached: 1510581397034.png (3952x5048, 2.57M)

Faggot Hemingways?
You're an absolute tosser...suppose you shit on Shakespeare as well?
Go pick up your fifty shades of grey man...

Based counter-semite user. This aspect is very significant must always be reinforced

That may have been somewhat true in the past, but the way women fit into society is changing due to the feminist movement and the increase in equality in the workplace. Men now compete with women for status. I know you're bitter about that, but it's true.

Inb4 "girls only have to rely on their looks." Ugly girls have high-paying jobs now too (although I'll grant that many women do get ahead by virtue of their physical appearance/charm).

The more beautiful you are the less motivated you are to improve your intelligence, knowledge, skills, and personality in general by 50% of the population. If you are beautiful, you get plenty of attention anyway, and for most people "attention" is a main driver of personality development. You are in demand all the time, regardless.
Worse: it is very likely that men pretend to be impressed by whatever she says and does, a fact that may further diminish her motivation to self-improvement, and may further increase the reason that women don't find her interesting.
The risk is that a big component of her cognitive development stops at 16. She doesn't need to inform herself on current events, read books, watch intellectual movies, go to lectures, etc because she is invited by so many males to so many events. Cute girls don't need to come up with topics of conversation. It is their male suitors who desperately try to find a topic of conversation that interests them. She doesn't need to have a personality to attract attention, and the risk is that she won't form one. She is not genetically dumb, but the risk is that she will get progressively "dumb".

Attached: Piero (1).jpg (209x204, 7K)

>Men now compete with women for status.

Not really. You could be the most successful, wittiest, smartest woman on Earth and I would still find a 14 year old girl with sub-100 IQ way more attractive than her. The same is quire the reverse for men. This is the source of bitterness

That's no set new reality, it's a historical aberration that will decline as feminism becomes less appealing and childless cat lady genes are selected against among women. Feminism has been bad for women and was never meant to last, and the natural order will re-correct itself naturally over time or by force if the jews using feminism to manipulate white women cannot be outmaneuvered politically and removed from power.

I'm not saying it's natural, on the contrary I believe a lot (not all) of women are jealous of male creativity.
Possibly could be organized for the publishing industry to become feminized.
All I know for sure is, women tend to want
to try their hand imitating the male greats & when they don't have the kind of success they want, they adopt Marxist philosophies to "even the playing field."

I can see it now. When I turn forty and all the old feminist women, after a life of living like worthless entitled whores start being forced into lonely, childless, single retirements. A new generation of hyper feminine beauties reach legal age raised by the women who chose to have wholesome traditional lifestyles
It will be like Christ come again rising with the Eastern Sun

There are worse things you could do. Honestly if you make it into a lullaby it'll probably be one of the most constructive things you could do.

>There are smart boys, stupid boys, boys who play on rocks... and standard deviation girls...

Perhaps, but white women are being instructed to believe such things are in their interests when they aren't. Women are followers who enforce status quos and will believe whatever the dominant male or social power tells them to. The problem is that many white women no longer receive these social cues from their own men, but from publications, media, and other agents controlled primarily for jews who don't have their best interests in heart and are instructing them to oppose their own men. They blow with the wind and would do a 180 tomorrow if the social order did.

This is to an extent already happening. The most rabid feminists are women who grew up in the 70s and there is a very unappealing bent to feminism now, even though it is enshrined in our culture. It's still a major problem but it seems fewer young white girls are drawn to it these days and behave more in line with what 'femininity' has always been defined by.

The point I'm trying to make though is that women themselves aren't the problem, but those in charge of our culture, who tell white women to act in ways that are bad for them, and bad for us.

No part of the problem is women as part of their nurturing instinct are simply more sensitive to suffering in the world than men. While women reinforce the status quo its ironically men that are more keen to follow new orders and new ways
It used to be a well known stereotype that it was women who voted conservative and in the first half of the twentieth century while clownish revolutionary socialist men were outraged at them being the obstacle to progress and the grand society
Your characterization of women doesn't lend them the credit they deserve as the firmest safeguard of order, when there is order

No, not bait. I'm just sharing my experience with her work. I read Dance of the Happy Shades over about a week and loved it. I soon after bought Lives of Girls and Women and am enjoying it even more.

Her writing is honest and insightful, and the way she tells the story is so evocative for me. The characters are memorable and funny and some of them are so like people I know, that I sometimes tear up because in certain instances, the actions of a character (specifically, her mother) makes me understand my parents so much more.

If I have to recommend a story or two, I would say:

Heirs of the Living Body
and
An Ounce of Cure
and
Boys and Girls

Evidently.
We can see this is demonstrably true by French females dating German officers during the occupation in WW2 (among other ethnicities).
Also anecdotally during the start of troubles in Northern Ireland, when British soldiers first arrived in the province Irish Catholic girls began to frequent the night clubs/bars to date them, there was a term coined for them "soldier girls". First Graffiti began to appear throughout the Provence condemning the practice, when that had no effect the IRA began entering homes of practitioners at night & dragging them out to the front garden & knee capping them in front of the whole community, needless to say the practice ceased.
Women do not for the most part have in group loyalty, but, we can't hold this against them because as we know from evolutionary psychology, this is a survival/coping mechanism that is due to humanities violent conquering history...they would often be subject to their husband, brothers, fathers, son's being murdered by the conquerers & having to lay in bed with the men who did it so they developed this mechanism

George Eliot could mop the floor with Evelyn Waugh. Patriarchy will always crush

Based George, I love that guy

I never said women are "the firmest safeguard to order." I said they behave however they're told is acceptable to behave, and that they're behaving badly now because the jews running our institutions are their new daddy and telling them it's okay to behave that way.

I agree. And white women probably deserve more credit than they often get going by recent voting patterns and rates of miscegenation/giving birth to non-white babies given their nature and the degree of propaganda.

>I said they behave however they're told is acceptable to behave

Again I totally disagree. Its men who are the ones who are the most willing to be "just following orders", who are willing abandon all morality because some autistic true believer tells them to do so.
Women have a far better connection to what is good in the world and what makes life worth living
They may date Nazi's but they rarely become them

>Evelyn Waugh

Is this a lit meme?

>There's an evolutionary advantage
Idk about you but I prefer my women to not be stupid so they too might have an evolutionary advantage if they start writing eh

I don't, I actively prefer stupid women

>Women have a far better connection with what is good in the world.

That's a statement, now qualify it.

Just look up statistics on the gender balance between sadists, serial killers, child molestors. Anyone can hurt animals for no reason but its only men that do

Maybe women do have a better connection to what is good in the world and what makes life worth living, but they will still adopt the dominant belief system of the culture or that of their mate. If that happens to be jewish egalitarian liberalism, they will reinforce those ideas; if it happens to be more traditional ways of social order, they will reinforce those instead. But they will flip between them or adopt something else if that's what their mate or potential mate believes in. Women are fungible, men are far more staunch in their idealism and beliefs.

No you made the assertion you should prove it.

But let me help you in your research, Erin
Pizzey a staunch uk feminist who founded not only the first ever battered wives refuge in the UK but a string of them was banished from her own organization for stating that from her experience with the women they were frequently abusive to their children while in the refuges, & declaring domestic violence to be reciprocal...we can see this confirmed that in lesbian relationships domestic violence still proliferates.

Can't say I've read all of them, but I've read Frankenstein and a bit of Dickinson and neither struck me as particularly profound.

Staunch in their current beliefs but not over the course of their lives. I think the two aspects go hand in hand really, when you have a commitment to something deeper than the arbitrary ideology of the day you don't feel as much about abandoning it.
A man meanwhile can switch ideology every two years and be willing to die for it each time
Entrepid but quite silly

>you should prove it.

The fuck you on? I just referenced quantifiable data that supports what I was saying
In this type of topic thats all one can do, take it or leave it

Can you repost the link to the data then I'll post mine.

You can keep it, I don't care in the least. If I care to see data I can find it on my own and so can you. The fact that men make up the vast majority of violent criminals is common knowledge
Women may make up a large portion of abusive parents is just a testament to the fact in poor communities men often don't care enough to even raise their own children which can be worse than some forms of abuse

If only it were that clear cut. White women are strong reinforcers of the current jewish-led liberal paradigm because it's sold to their nurturing instincts and is conveyed in a socially benevolent, moral light. But it's white men who have been the first to realize the negative long-term consequences being created because men have a better sense of what is good and bad for our societies, not women. Because women are enforcers, it's never been their duty to determine the proper course for a society, so their faculties for making such assessments are not as developed. There are virtues and downfalls in both, but the current problem is that white men and white women aren't on the same page because there's a third party dividing us and manipulating us into furthering their interests instead of our own.

But you're just proven the above point with regard the bell curve.
Yes we know that members of the male gender make up the most violent & idiots, but also the most genius/inventive/ creative but you'd moved away from that point on to some inherent"goodness" in women, which we can prove is not true.

Look the standing point is, women tend, not exclusively, but tend to be followers of what is the majority view, even if it is destructive to their own family/community.
Whereas men, tend again not exclusively (no offense but think you're a bit of a example of this) but tend to be more likely to fight to preserve their family/community.

This too is actually a myth. The wider bellcurve of men is taken from the age group of 6 to 16. Adult males just have a higher average iq in general.

Attached: image.jpg (547x435, 95K)

The adult graph.

Attached: image.jpg (548x442, 95K)

> because men have a better sense of what is good and bad for our societies, not women.

Not quite, men just simply get hit harder by what goes wrong. For every guy that has become redpilled there's another guy that listens to Chapo Traphouse and unironically calls for Muslims to destroy the West.
Men are quicker to look for change, I agree, but I simply wish to emphasize this is a double edged sword

Really we're much in agreement I just think we should always see that women are truly lovely beings and their spiritual virtues should not be overlooked.

My theory is just that we tend to notice the stupid males more. For example a 80 iq man is likely to be very aggressive and show obvious signs of being stupid just due to him being confrontational. Contrast that with a female who is more docile and quiet and you don’t notice they’re stupid until you actually talk to them. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked to a girl who looked smart and then realized she had no abstract thinking skills whatsoever. Being men we also tend to not realize the flaws of women as much as we would other men because we are attracted to them.

Who is to say the adolescent data isn't more reflective of actual cognitive ability rather than later encultured thought patterns

I am the Globglogabgalab, I am the yeast of thoughts and minds and I bless only men with my powers of knowledge and literature SCHWABBLE DABBLE GLIBBLE GLAB CLAP

>George Eliot could mop the floor with Evelyn Waugh. Patriarchy will always crush
Almost fell for that bait

Attached: 1518970302434.png (372x300, 35K)

the absolute state

I'm just saying one has to be open to the possibility. What reason would there be for a large proportion of young boys to be less intelligent than girls until a later age?

>Their spiritual values
Again not to rain on your parade, but I feel like you're white knighting a bit, go to the majority of religious/spiritual/philosophy texts are primarily composed by men.

Look at the practice of monasticism/ ascetics to further spiritual development, practice's predominantly by males.

Look, if women are so spiritual, why are so many perfectly fine with killing their own unborns as a form of birth control?

I'm afraid you've put women up on a pedestal that the majority simply can't live up to... ultimately will only disappoint yourself.

>Again not to rain on your parade, but I feel like you're white knighting a bit, go to the majority of religious/spiritual/philosophy texts are primarily composed by men

Of course but yet most religious congregations are women. Not that I was talking about spiritual qualities in quite a specific sense. This is another case of exceptional men serving exceptional roles. Women may not be prophets and evangelists but it is well understood that in the early days of Christianity it was thanks to women that converted the Roman Empire, not because they were forced to or because they submitted to some new conquered but because their sensitivity compelled them to hear the new message of Christ and hand it on to their children

There are some good hypothesis for this . The best being the fact that women tend to develop (puberty) at an earlier age and finish at an earlier age. This is where the idea of teenage girls being more mature comes from and I would agree. A lot of men don’t even hit puberty until 15 and don’t finish until much later therefore in this age group would be much for veritable. All the earlier 6 to 16 year old graph concludes is that males in that age group are more variable in iq than women (they still have a higher average iq). I think it says something when you are so desperate to put women on a pedestal to take the lower age group where people are obviously developing at different rates than the adult one which would be more constant.

It's more nuanced than that though. Men and women respond to incentives and every incentive is in place for the chapo traphouse guy, while the redpilled guy would have his life destroyed if he made his views public, that's how disincentivized those ideas presently are. That so many white men regardless of these social dynamics still hold strong to such heretical beliefs does point to men's, or white men's, willingness to be more staunchly ideological, but it also indicates a long-term awareness women lack.

I agree with much in that post, but, unfortunately in this modern age, so few of them seem to have the sensitivity you speak of.
It is undeniable that in my experience, the Christian women I've met have made strong impressions on me, but ultimately they are a minority.

Here's what I predict will happen to women in 50 yrs or less (it's avoidable, but not probable I think).
One way or another their rights will be rescinded.
Either by Islam or neo masculinity.

If Islam or basically the 3rd world takes over the west, Women are in the worst of trouble.

WHEN a tipping point is reached & the majority of western males decide they are not going extinct without a fight (which will happen) IF we win when the dust settles the very first thing men will ask themselves is, "how did this happen?"
& The answers they'll come with are; first we gave women the vote, then we allowed them a fair chance of sharing power, then they decided they wanted less babies, then they decided they wanted less of us & more of ((them)) that last part will particularly hurt man's heart, the fact that he is replaceable is a bitter pill to swallow. Then it'll be a case of, well guess for our own preservation it behooves us to curtail women's power (which ultimately they only have as much as we decide to give)

I heard a fly buzz when I died didn't impress you? For shame.

You know how men are naturally physically superior? Well same thing for mentally
Why do you think all the top chess players ever have all been males

Couldn't you move the principles of this to millennials and Gen Zers who've spent most of their lives online?

I am an idealist to the grave. While men will be fighting and trying to find answers it is my hope that something new can be made if it is possible for women to forgive us
Not in a "white guilt" way but that through all the horror of history and all that we've done that women can look on mans work and still see something beautiful and hopeful in us that I am not even sure of myself

That sounds very borderline like white guilt, though.

I don't mean this in a bad way but there's no real way to say it nice.

You personally are destined for Extinction. Your personal belief system demands it.

I don't wish it on you but I nor no one else can save you from yourself