You will never respect women enough to write about them in any meaningful or realistic way and not turn their...

my method for respecting women is that i imagine i'm gay and women are men

They don't have intellectual worth, cuck

And they should be virgins. See how female sexuality has ruined western civilization

Why should they be virgins? You didn't answer the question btw

Are you saying that all men have intellectual Worth?

Because female sexuality is a disease
They are more human than women, and more rational and logic, so yes

...

Way too many words for what your saying, half it.

>They are more human than women
How do you define human in this case?

The entire concept of a "character" implies all kinds of subtle immanent teleologies and destiny and intentionality.

Women are like a species of chimp that can reach to suck its own dick, so that's all it does all day. They don't have destinies in real life, so narrative mimesis can't make them protagonists in fiction.

Even a child can think up a fairly compelling male character, with an immediately implicit arc, because it's just basic human nature to think of men in terms of striving after their goals and growing in the process. It's like the essence of humanity itself, called "Mankind" for a reason. For the same reason, even a child knows that a narrative about a woman makes no sense: the woman would either only simulate drivenness as an ornament, or she'd give up after 5 minutes and start crying for a dude to actually undertake to accomplish her goal for her. EVERYONE knows this.

This is why any Hollywood action grrrl story is intuitively garbage. The stale tropes of even the most schlocky fantasy adventure story with a male protagonist has some kind of origin in a spiritual idea, some kind of basic hero's journey shit. A story about a woman going on a quest is ALL trope. There is no organic core to build it up from, so you just build this ornate crystalline structure entirely out of tropes. The human soul can sense that it's "off," fundamentally uncanny, for a woman to have ambition or to mutilate her Being for the sake of a Becoming.

It's not about respect. It's like asking why you'll never respect floral wallpaper enough to write a good bildungsroman about it. It's fucking wallpaper. It's there to pretty up the place, not be a vehicle for anagnorisis. Put your cock in it and go back to being a free artist of yourself.

>more rational and logic, so yes
Really proving your point here, champ
>they should be virgins
So we should have no civilisation at all?

You still haven't responded if you're a virgin or not, although you'll probably lie by this point to protect your deep and obvious sexual insecurities

Rational

But user, aren't you just projecting your own subjective image of women onto that demographic, and furthermore generalising them to the point where you're saying that all women fuck around and that they aren't self-conscious?

It doesn't. Not him, but I'm all for more freedom in sexuality, I think it's quite beautiful that we're in an age where women can take full control of their sexual lives. Humans are sexual beings after all. That said, women never had intellectual worth to begin with, so your entire question is moot.

Are robots more human than us then?

Yes I am a virgin and proud not to succumb to lust an degeneracy. You can't virgin shame me, roastwhore.

Much of my writing models my life in some way or form, so it wouldn't be strange for there to be very little or none women in them.

What's with the sudden influx of /pol/shit at the moment? There was just the thread about Sanders that wasn't even trying to be Veeky Forums and now we've got this dipshit.

We're taking over, cuck.

Take the redpill or fuck off to /r/books

/pol/ gets the most traffic at the moment if I'm not mistaken, by quite a large margin, so it is only natural there would be a lot of spillover in to other boards

Besides, this is more /r9k/ if you ask me.

I know, right? I wish this place were a hugbox where I can talk about my gay feelings. I'm transitioning to female tomorrow. What about you? I've already gouged out my new pussy hole with a pair of scissors. Soon I'll be a beautiful woman! #ImWithHer #blacklivesmatter

you read about the lives of great women and their accomplishments, i suppose. you observe well written women in great novels and try to learn from that. you just mature enough so that these childish prejudices seem like a distant and embarrassing memory to you.

How is my thread remotely /r9k/?
I'm legitimately dealing with the fact that I am a sexist and borderline misogynist, which I wish to change, but empathizing with women via my own attempts at writing literature.

I'm fairly certain half of them are just shitposters, and /R9K/'s pseudo fascination with us because Elliot Rodger was literate to an extent is what's causing all this unfounded misogyny and citing of Schopenhauer's meme tier essay (replace women with 'layman' and man with 'great person' or 'introspective person' or 'philosophically endowed individual) and the essay becomes much more coherent

also read great female novelists. they are out there, despite what some people here may say. tell me your favorite writers and ill try recommend some that align with your tastes

Yo wanted an /r9k/ circle jerk and got it. Or you would've opened the thread in a less obvious way

Huysmans, Kipling, Schelling

hi im a new reader, but im looking for a female author that touches on how they perceive the world and their perspective as a woman. doesn't have to be fiction.

i've also read some short stories by Ivan Turgenev which i've liked.

also read stoner and thought it was great.

if you could recommend me anything, i'd appreciate it a lot. thanks

Oscar Wilde, Borges, Julius Evola, Dante.

Pretty much anything by Margaret Atwood.

I've never even been on /r9k/.

Women are garbage

George Eliot, Jane Austen

meet some

>more human
>human = rational

lol do you honestly believe you are rational?
or more human than a fucking human being?

a rational world couldn't exist. literally. there's no reason for existence, right? less efficient than nothingness, right? so.. irrationality is inescapable, even at the most fundamental level.

Furthermore, mathematical reasoning is not computational. You'd think computation is the epitome of rationality, but you'd also think that mathematics is. Nope. So you're hopeless.

Daily reminder.

Tone down on the autism there. If you can't write about women authentically, you're bound to be a shit writer. Don't listen to the /r9k/ fags about how its impossible to write up a good female character without making her into a man/sexualized fantasy. It's possible, just not many people can do it because most of Veeky Forums writers lack the experience of the human condition. My best advice for you is to get out there and experience life, so that your words may imitate life and "feel" authentic.

I've met women and men alike, who are like a book instead of blank pages waiting to be written upon. I guest that's how you identify good people. I think you need to look for a complexity within people to truly appreciate them

edith wharton, ayn rand, margaret visser, flannery o'connor and definitely clarice lispector, simone de beauvoir
jane austen definitely. margaret atwood, virginia woolf, the brontes
austen, gaskell, dorothy parker, all of the above desu

I don't get this post. Women are simply human beings, and are not more or less profound than men.

The idea that it's supposedly hard to write a female character authentically, assume that there is some specific kind of female essence, beyond what exists in a male. Which I think is ridiculous.

9 times out of 10, women are almost exactly like men, they think about disgusting sexual fetishes, they want to fuck daily, they read books, they watch TV, they go to the gym, they talk shit with their co-workers, and they talk about dicks instead of vaginas with their friends.

Where's the profoundness?

>Depreciation in chapter 10
What kind of shitty accounting class are you taking?

Hedonist scum

Rationality is the least human virtue.

Make an argument against sexual freedom.

fail
this; emotions matter to hedonists who think hedonism is a good life style.
But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist. In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.

for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death

hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.

of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.

Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.

Sexual """liberation""" broke the family unit. Taking away the natural consequence for being a slut was disastrous, it perverted an act of procreation into one purely for cheap pleasure.

>Make an argument against sexual freedom.
see

Do you realise how much you sound like a fucking SJW?

"hey we r being raided by pol wtf guys'

'haha u dont like getting raided by us ARENT YOU A PROGRESSIVE FUCKING TRUDEAU DUDE WEED KEK BLACK ORPHAN DIMENSIONAL DYSPHORIA ESSS JAY DOUBLE YOU"

>writing a rule 63 manga about the cold war
>all the characters are girls, but actually men
>only have to briefly write about girls here and there
take the easy way out senpai

>implying pleasure is cheap

Spooky

Trips wasted by a complete fucking retard.

As much as /pol/ loves to talk about Darwinism and natural consequence as well as use it as a way to rationalise things, 'hey heinous shit happens because thats nature if it wasnt nature it wouldve never happened therefor ur wrong', cant you apply that argument to 'sexual liberation' and other concepts that make your feelings hurt and realise the reason they happened is because evolutionary consequence within humans incurred them to?

>family unit
Expand on why this is any more than a social construct? What natural consequence do you refer to?

That's not an argument against sexual freedom.

This is an 18+ website.

Nah it's just sexist divorce and custody laws. Women winning custody 83% of the time is more bullshit than women not being soldiers, and they usually benefit more from divorce than men and women file for divorce more than men.

Not to mention child custody pay is scaling, so when you lose custody, the more money you make the more money you owe. It's not designed around what is best for the child, it's designed around what's best for the women.

it doesn't exist because condoms break and men do not have any choice what so ever in terms of getting an abortion or putting the kid up for adoption.

So if you fuck somebody and your condom breaks then you suddenly owe 150,000 dollars if the girl decides to be irresponsible, and you don't get to see your kid very much or raise them.

If I can get it for $50 in the red light district of my city, it's cheap.

>That's not an argument against sexual freedom.

It sure is. Rich people are the beneficiaries of market freedom, because they have so much money they can ignore market forces, but the rest of society is left with scraps.

The same thing happened when the Sexual Revolution happened. Before it, marriage was seen as both a romantic union, and as a financial agreement between 2 parties, and even the ugliest of the ugly in society would get married and have children. After the Sexual Revolution only the top tier of men have sex, with most of the women, because as we all know, most people look average, and most people can't compete with the Brad Pitt's of the world who get all the women and all the access to vaginas.

>So if you fuck somebody and your condom breaks then you suddenly owe 150,000 dollars if the girl decides to be irresponsible
You're irresponsible by fucking an irresponsible girl.

>I don't know what pleasure is
Sounds accurate for someone from /pol/

You're making an argument about sexism in civil law, not about sexual liberation. Not to mention that the situations you describe could happen without liberation having ever taken place.

Except that isn't even remotely true.

>Except that isn't even remotely true.

Except it is, which you would know if you weren't ugly.

>You're irresponsible by fucking an irresponsible girl.
You do realize that any girl anywhere has the rights to do this to you, right? From New York universities to bars, this happens, and a lot. Sexual liberation is not real for men and you have no rights, ignore the /r9k//pol/ coalition.

were ugly*

Know that they were born that way, and that the intelligent ones have taken a virtuous path.

You have the right to be picky and not fuck crazy people.

The profoundness lays at the bottom, where you must put aside all the less-pleasant things to fully enjoy. Most people has had to kill themselves to find value in life, if they even want to find it at all

because women totally have "crazy" written on their foreheads you fucking retard

Then why do I see ugly men with more attractive women all the time? You live in a bubble. If you left the bubble, you too would find women. But you should hold yourself to higher standards of pleasure than sex.

I don't think you understand. EVERY girl has the right to do this to you. Your odds will be slightly better if you are the primary caretaker and sign a prenup and make less money than her, but she still will be favored in courts and can extort you if she wants. Not to mention that prenups are invalidated in courts if you aren't a good boy for your entire life.

Thanks for the ideology, this is some real pure shit and I needed my fix today

>Then why do I see ugly men with more attractive women all the time?

You don't. Stop lying.

If you can tell right away, take your fucking time to find out instead of sticking it in. Not that hard.

Every woman has the right because pregnancy is infinitely times more punitive for her than for him.

By avoiding the crazies, you make sure that it will never be relevant in the first place.

>Not to mention that prenups are invalidated in courts if you aren't a good boy for your entire life.
Citation needed. Besides, is it really that challenging?

>infinitely more punitive
You're missing the point, she has an opt out.
> by avoiding crazies
EVERY woman has the 'right' to do this.

You can increase your probability of fortune, but it happens to the best. IIRC the wikipedia founder is currently paying child support to 2-3 women and he rarely sees his kids because his ex's don't want to move.

The cumulative rights add up though

>even if there is agreeance before hand to no children and a condom is attempted to be used
>the women has the sole right to abortion or not
>the women can vote against adoption
>the women WILL win child custody
>the women WILL win child support

it's harder to invalidate prenups as a normie, but for people in the finance industry you are particularly vulnerable, and pessimistic sounding emails as a publically traded company is enough to invalidate it.

You're ashamed enough, freindo.

>Before leaving high school

Nothing says mature, rational world views like clinging on to hormonal adolescent angst. Your childhood, childish views on the behavior of other children isn't really applicable to mature, rent-paying adults with real life and world experiences.

You can't 'respect' women as you say.
Regardless of how you write women, feminists are guaranteed to call it sexist. Changing something isn't going to make a difference either, as long as there are any women in your work, they will complain about it.
Now, if you want to write a good story that involves women, you should do just that.

You pay men for services you can't do. Other than that, they are useless to you.
Women's only use is sex. They offer a service; sex and intimacy.
Being friends with a woman does not make sense because you will inevitebly want intercourse with her if you find her physically attractive, and the possibility of rejection increases dramatically, the longer you two are friends. This is because she "sees you as a friend" ie the female realises she can exploit you of your intimacy without recouperating with sex. Obviously females enjoy sex or else they wouldn't have it, but sex for them is like chocolate. If they want some, they can just go get it. Whereas for males, sex is like excersise; if we want results we have to work extremely hard. (Unless you have good genetics and fast metabolism, then all you have to do is mimic normie behaviour and not sperg out, then you can get laid).
When was the last time a girl rewarded you with sex for saving her life? How about when you defended her from being raped/picked on by bullies? When you took her to prom, only for her to be fucked by Chad that night? Oh she's bipoler/depressed/autistic? And you looked after her for how many years? Oh my God, she cheated on you with Chad! All you did for her, the money you spent. No matter what, you shall not kill yourself because there's plenty of fish in the sea... Oh wait? The guy who bullied you all throughout highschool, set your hair on fire, called you a nigger/paki/whitetrash/pizza face; you just caught him fucking your mom? Holy shit dude that is when you kill her and kill yourself.
Murphy's law everybody: 'Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong at the worst possible moment.'

I respect women tbqh
would not pander to them though, that would be a disrespect

write under a female pseudonym

Stop writing man ur not good at it

>t. Someone who has a folder dedicated to Pepe the frogman

If that's a joke I don't get it

Jesus christ this post is really sad.
>When you're a virgin past the age of 30

There are billions of people that you haven't met, male and female. I wouldn't go around declaring conclusions about billions of people when you've gotten to know less than a thousand.

Really, you doubt yourself over everything else, why let this be your outlet of cognitive dissonance? I know it is easier to be angry at this thing, but it doesn't make much sense.

Nice double dubs

Gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

much butthurt, mad

srsly thou i write about way attractive meaningful realistic women with deep
4relz

only someone who hasn't read much of anything could think like this

you know nothing

>Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel'

Why wouldn't you be dead then? There's nothing to consciously experience, so what else is there?

Just think of a man, then take away reason and accountability.

there is such a thing as attractive poor women who stay poor all their lives marrying ugly poor men. this has happened, this will happen.

What if you wrote up a contract she signed that says all potential pregnancies will be aborted?
>a single instance of a class of people immensely large and thus near impossible to describe generally is sexist
god aren't they something

>Women's only use is sex.
>Oh she's bipoler/depressed/autistic? And you looked after her for how many years?
is this bait? fucking pathetic either way

There's been plenty of sexist authors. Take For Whom the Bell Tolls. Of the two female characters, one is just a woman who acts like a man and the other is a thoughtless dependent of the male protagonist.

even if one would grant you that premise, that in itself is not an argument against sexual freedom. if anything, your perverted alt right cuck logic is just being inverted here. the cherry picked market/social Darwinistic values you guys circle jerk when it comes to money and race are exemplary of this. if 'gib me' fags and 'dindu' fags are just byproducts of the system then so to are 'forever alone' fags - survival of the fittest and all. subscribing to your logic, it seems to me like just a way of breeding out losers and thus in the long run actually being an argument for sexual freedom.