Understanding Women

>Virginia Woolf
woolfy!

>Understanding Women
"The Treatise on Love, As Understood by an Awful Bore" by Protopopov is must-read
oocities.org/protopop_1999/treatise.html

You want nonfiction if you want to truly understand women.

Read Doll House by Ibsen all women adore it and love it very much because it's super duper empowering and feminist for le win smash the patriarchy.

t. Strindberg

reminder this is what happens to roasties who show their face

Shakespeare

OP here. So far I've acquired:

Wuthering Heights by Brontë
A room of ones own by Woolf

And I'll probably check out the rest once I finish these two pieces

> This is a manual for young people who are puzzled and exhausted by the oddity of love. The instinctive basics of human conjugal behavior as a biological species are examined. There is a brief review of biological presuppositions at the beginning, followed by scrutinizing the instinctive criteria for choice of a marriage partner for people, and practical advice. And in conclusion there is an ethological review of instinctive behavioral motivations of people.

See this is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Reading this stuff will make you over think everything and probably come off as a twat. People socialize well with others when they practice, not by sticking their nose in a book and avoiding the real world and the real people in it. Why bother with reading a non fiction book about women, even if it's factual and well researched, unless it's going to offer any kind of real advice?

Man you guys think any solution can be found in a book. You're just avoiding the hard part.

Briffault's Law. Briffault wrote some books, but I don't know that any are about this concept in particular.
youtu.be/M8aT6uE3QFs

Also to some degree, Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, although it's about thinking in general, explains the irrational system of judgement that people often associate with women.
youtu.be/uqXVAo7dVRU

>explains the irrational system of judgement that people often associate with women.

Because this kind of thinking is really going to help.

We do go out but women are too complex to understand from pure observations. I own a cat but maybe I want to know how it ticks without dissecting it myself.

You've reacted defensively and misunderstood what I was trying to communicate, which is ironically exactly what I was talking about. So, thanks for the example :P

Read this short essay first. It tells you everything about women behavior you should know.

Hahaha is this real? You're equating understanding another human being with dissecting a cat? There's that over thinking I cautioned against. They're not too complex to understand, you're just an idiot. Or young, or confused. jesus christ browsing Veeky Forums has really given me insight into why some dudes are so condescending while trying to interact with me.

For starters, don't compare understanding your fellow humans to understanding cats.

>what is an analogy

Do you know how analogies work?

>OP taking my recommendations
feelsgoodman

Gotcha, bout to check it out. I have to agree and disagree with certain proclamations in this thread, which are based off of my personal opinions and experiences.

1. I can honestly say that usually men have 1-3 things on our mind at once, with that being so, aren't prone to an over flux of stimulation
Women on the other hand, if any can vouch or disagree, seem to have numerous amounts of different things going on up there. Like the constant flipping of Rolodex of feelings and stimulations

2. Not saying all women are like this, but I've seen women that are sweet and innocent on the outside, yet become the most vicious and vindictive people you will ever meet. Men can be petty at times, but women take the cake

3. I'm 22 and sadly the majority of women I do end up meeting are super narcistic, self absorbed, Twitter, snapchat, etc etc. I just wonder what the big pressure is for constantly throwing yourself on the internet like some art piece making its way around the city

>understanding women

impossible, since to understand something, the thing in question would have to behave logically

you cannot understand something that is to a large degree random, you can only include it in your calculations of predicted behaviour

>echo

>super narcistic, self absorbed, Twitter, snapchat,

That doesn't mean most women are like that, it just means most of the one's you meet are shitty people. The trick is to not meet shitty people but that applies to all aspects of life.

I don't mean this condescendingly but 22 is quite young, and a lot of young people, men and women alike, are like what you described. I would bet you money that in 6 or 8 years the people you meet will be a little less full of themselves, and a little more full of life. Or they'll still be full of shit. Aha.

>not realizing that if any gender is irrational it's men.

>I just wonder what the big pressure is for constantly throwing yourself on the internet like some art piece making its way around the city
The pressure of ages of evolutionary programming. The pressure of the urge to reproduce. Perhaps even a lack of meaningful introspective capabilities.

Any comparison of irrationality between genders is only a matter of degrees. What really matters is the differences in the common patterns of irrationality; which kinds are more frequently used by which gender, and why.

Yes but its becoming an unhealthy habit for youth, especially women. Scientifically, great. Human civilization is repopulating like never before seen in all of history, which honestly is actually becoming a problem itself. But now culturally speaking, most marriages end in divorce. Estrangement of the genders is rapidly increasing and family dynamics are changing. Look at hardcore feminism or the music drowning with connotations of treating women like nothing than meat and them accepting it. It's more than "hurr durr I'm a monkey dat wants to fuck" but then again that's the main reason why I'm trying figure women out in the first place, if not the general human race

maybe focus on graduating high school first

Gone with the Wind, Mildred Pierce, Daisy Miller. I'm a girl and those are the only ones I enjoy that I can think of that are what you're looking for here off the top of my head

who's afraid of virgina woolf, virgina woolf, virgina woolf?

>if not the general human race
Aha, so you want some big redpills.
Look into what biologists refer to as r/K selection, and what Nietzsche refers to as Master-Slave morality.
I'll let you connect the dots. I think that understanding how these two concepts relate yields about the best understanding of humanity that one can get. Thinking Fast and Slow is also related, and who knows what else.

Don't put the man down for expressing curiosity about the world.

also The Scarlet Letter. The part where the women want to see the letter burned into her forehead is a perfect representation of bitter women who hate women prettier than them.

You might want to try Gillian Flynn. She writes edgy pulp mysteries, but her characterization is top notch.

I'm "red pilled" on those, yet I don't like focusing on those rabbit holes. Unless transcendence is actually achievable;that stuff just bums me out.

Thanks user

>r/K selection, and what Nietzsche refers to as Master-Slave morality
i googled r/K selection and have read plenty of nietzsche but idgi

>I'm "red pilled" on those, yet I don't like focusing on those rabbit holes.

Ok.

>Hey guys, I want a better understanding of the world
>But not that way, it makes me feel bad :(

I don't think you really understand then. To me, the concept represents a crystal clear perspective on life, one which explains and predicts the emergence of many phenomena.
Emergence, there's another big topic you should look into for a better understanding of life.

>Unless transcendence is actually achievable
Whether or not transcendence is achievable is not the point; striving for it is. The goal is not the goal, the system is.

I almost hate to say this because of how some people will react, but Stefan Molyneux has some very user-friendly videos on r/K selection on youtube:
youtu.be/W8N3FF_3KvU?list=PLMNj_r5bccUw40CpD-JYXJyVsDYsj7ITD

If you don't get it after watching a couple of these, then you may have read plenty of Nietzsche, but you failed to understand him.
In which case I'd recommend another set of rather lengthy videos:
youtu.be/2fTnEB_r_6Q

You may want to start with that Thinking Fast and Slow video I posted above, as it's only 10 mins long and extrapolates on a key distinction.

>expecting me to watch hours of video instead of just saying what you mean

I thought that "To the Lighthouse" was very insightful regarding the female mind.

Also Franz Werfel’s "Pale Blue Ink in a Lady's Hand", even though the protagonist is male.

Would if I could pal, but I only have so much time.
And don't expect to gain a greater understanding of the world by begging to be spoonfed.

i'm just not trying to waste my time on what seems like redpill bullshit.

>the person who made this post thinks other people are condescending

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

>females
>human
top laff

theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html
This is all you need.

>Human civilization is repopulating like never before seen in all of history
Birthrates in almost all first world countries are below replacement rates.

I understand.

Read Mrs, Dalloway by Woolf. It's such a great book for examining the failure of men and women's style of communicating. Just take everything the characters think seriously and read into it; when a character loves and hates someone at the same time it's not something to glance over.

Gabriel Marque wrote Love in the Time of Cholera, which in my opinion handles male/female interaction very well and delves into the strange contradictions of conscience, e.g. a wife gets angrier at a husband for admitting he cheated on her because if he had denied it at least it would have been a sign he still wanted her. Marquez is a very wise author.

In terms of dealing with people well I'd rec Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. Contrary to the title it's more about developing a sense of understanding of others that helps you appreciate them more, and by extension make them like you for that.

If you have to pick one of those three go with Mrs. Dalloway, and read it closely.

Last chapter of Ulysses.
Do it.

With women everything comes after sex; with men everything comes before sex.

The marriage end in divorce because of the introduction of no fault divorce and because it's possible for both partners to sustain themselves economically.
Faulty reasoning to thing people now break up marriage because they understood the others better before.

who even knows what women are my man, i hear they can only breathe helium

>Hahaha is this real? You're equating understanding another human being with dissecting a cat?

You underestimate the sperg levels on this website.

Gender is a spook, so just pick up a biology textbook.

See

Male and female brains are observably different.

>2016
>honestly thinking that the correct weapon to understand a woman's mind are books written by brilliant ladies

That's sex, not gender; read my posts twice before ever replying to me again.

>that great feeling when you know you got someone aced so you can be as much of a cunt about it as you want

So satisfying.

gender, much like culture is biology expressed on a mass scale

and the semantics shitflinging begins

human and dog brains are observably different

unfalsifiable

Emily of New Moon

expand or i'll assume you don't have arguments.

Male and female brains are different, just read some scientific magazines, brain is not a magic soul container, it is the most expensive organ in our body. Or maybe you are just a retarded creationist, who knows...

>hey guys just stop reading science books, the truth will transform you into an asshole

They're attempting to argue the concept of gender is a social construct without seemingly understanding how and why that social construct exists. Gender roles do not arise from the ether, they are examples of expressed group biology. You can act like a retarded tumblrina and pretend you're a different gender for a day, but it doesn't change the fact that you lack the fundamental biological requisites for that gender role.

i reccomend you proles watch this for some enlightenment on the subject.
wikiwand.com/en/Hjernevask

the point is that you don't have an argument. you're just saying something unfalsifiable

not saying they aren't different but you're being dishonest if you are saying they aren't remarkably similar.

>They're attempting to argue the concept of gender is a social construct without seemingly understanding how and why that social construct exists. Gender roles do not arise from the ether, they are examples of expressed group biology. You can act like a retarded tumblrina and pretend you're a different gender for a day, but it doesn't change the fact that you lack the fundamental biological requisites for that gender role.

generally people follow up a topic sentence with an explanation or an example, not an insult

virgins sucking up to them

Of course they are similar, we are the same species, are you retarded?

You think female and male brains are the same because you feel that way, isn't?

Please explain how my statement is unfalsifiable. The evidence for gender being expressed group biology are all around you. The very existence of gender roles prove this. Do you seriously think they just arrived from the ether?

why did you disagree with me then? are you retarded?

where did i say they are the same? are your feelings dictating how you interpret my posts instead of observable evidence i.e. the posts themselves?

>The evidence for gender being expressed group biology are all around you.

wow!

It's true. Are you seriously going to sit here and deny that gender roles are not informed by biology?

no i'm going to sit here and wait for someone who can express your point of view in a way that isn't just "look around you!"

I provided you with a source a few replies back, but ok.

Just answer my question. Would you agree that gender roles are informed by biology?

Someone actually cared enough to translate Protopopov? Holy shit.

yeah i'm going to watch a documentary series instead of reading a well-informed post so i do all the work to prove your point rather than you

>Would you agree that gender roles are informed by biology?

i have no idea what you even mean by biology. first you said gender (and culture) are 'expressions' (?) of biology, then it became expressions of 'group' biology, now gender is simply informed by biology. i don't know what you mean by 'biology' and with the way you change the relationship between biology and gender with each post i'm not convinced you know what you mean by it either. like i said, it's unfalsifiable. you're not making an argument

it's 430am here. i can't be bothered to write a big post.

just read this for now and maybe when i wake up i'll inform you on how this ties into gender.

jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/

oh you're going to make some shit up for me? can't wait. i'll sit here and keep refreshing until i see your post

"If a lion could speak, we could not understand him"

I think it is important to point out to you, that you are essentially asking about "women in the context of Western culture".

God knows I have issues with contemporary feminism and gender studies. But when it comes down to it, most significant differences we see today are more nurture than nature. And I think keeping this perspective in mind will help putting whatever you read into context.

Considering this, it would probably be a good idea to just pick up contemorary Veeky Forumserature by female authors with female protagonists. And anything will do, really. I think most can be learned by examining the day-to-day of a female character. Well, almost anything. You may want to not read tumblr-tier feminist Veeky Forums or erotica.

I want to kill them.

read "the phallus" by susan bordo

>An example of Bordo's manner of reading the male body through its vulnerability can be found in her account for why men consume pornography. Bordo argues that the psychology of pornography consumption is one of powerlessness. This sensation comes from the notion that women control masculine sexuality, and therefore manhood itself, and can use this control to penetrate the male subjectivity and arouse desire which will be unrequited, leaving the man humiliated, frustrated and angry. Many men, Bordo argues, find comfort in degrading pornographic representations of women that enable them to regain their pride and sense of superiority over the bodies that tempt them only to leave them rejected and hurt. In addition, pornography creates a fantasy world in which the male body is always welcomed and never rejected. In other words, pornography enables men to turn their penis into a phallus. Pornography, Bordo argues, does not necessarily objectify women for it does represent them as subjects, willing subjects that will accept men no matter what. The fantasy created by pornography in of a sexual encounter that poses no threat on men.
Interesting.

The only thing worse than psychoanalysis, is feminist psychoanalysis.

What is your counter?

Christ, better late than never.

Schopenhauer had women down to a tee.

This may explain why I don't enjoy porn.

Me asking how she came to that conclusion in the first place.

I like many aspects of that excerpt.
I wouldn't say what's stated there is the sole reason for the consumption (the main reason will just be people enjoying getting off that way and by the nature of it a legal porn movie must have a woman enthusiastically accept a suitor) but I don't disagree with the analysis.
So I second Because you don't feel powerlessness - the circumstance that pretty women can get fucked by whoever they choose doesn't make you envy?