Is it true that the reason a woman has never written a masterpiece because of patriarchy and having next to no rights...

Women haven't written a masterpiece because the female brain simply isn't suited to such endeavors

There have been some good books written by women but they simply cannot equal a man

possibly one of the most overrated books ever written

and this is a world where harry potter exists

Before anyone concludes that women can't write, consider the possibility that women have written masterpieces, but they weren't allowed to be published because men thought it ludicrous that women could write good books.

Why do you think such a sizeable amount of masterpieces written by women were released under male pseudonyms?

>>possibly one of the most overrated books ever written

Of course it is. Anything that doesn't fit your narrative you shill is over rated garbage.

This is WE WUZ KANGZ tier logic

>This is WE WUZ KANGZ tier logic

OP is worse and so are you. You are killing this board.

Are you really going to hold up Middlemarch to Ulysses or the works of Shakespeare? Absolutely neck yourself.

>Are you really going to hold up Middlemarch to Ulysses or the works of Shakespeare?

Honestly do you power rank all literature in determining greatness? Who really doesn't understand literature? And James Joyce is largely the "over rated" one anyways. This used to be consensus here.

Lol. Just lol. What was even the point of that reply?

And that's /pol/ tier criticism, you fucking pleb piece of shit.

>Lol. Just lol. What was even the point of that reply?

Telling you that you should post about things on your comprehension level like on Veeky Forums

lmao STFU ju-male cucklord >__

You just misread your own post. Entirely unsurprising that you can't read, comparing Middlemarch to Ulysses. Lol.

>>You just misread your own post.

Nope. I didn't. Shill again. Reply to this post and shill some more.

Shilling for Joyce? You don't even know the meaning of the terms you use.

I'm still correct though

james joice is afucking kike

go back to r/books

You know what I mean by shilling son

brat is a nigger faggot

Go back to /r9k/. We have this thread fucking every day. Shut the fuck up.

Get the fuck out please.

No

Leave. Now.

Go back to /soc/ you whore, your posts are worthless and off topic.

You are the whore here user. You're getting triggered people here can talk about literature. You honestly think you can censor people from talking about it. It's very silly

You aren't talking about literature. Here is a summary of your contribution to the thread:
>/r9k/
>/pol/
>shill

Fuck off.

>You aren't talking about literature. Here is a summary of your contribution to the thread:

I was then you said it was over rated garbage and proceeded to make a useless comparison that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of literature. This shows you know shit all and aren't worthy of conversation.

I will call you shill because that's all you are doing. Shilling your politics and leaking from Veeky Forums

>m-middlemarch is just as g-good as ulysses
>w-what? you disagree? reeee go back to /pol/ Veeky Forums /r9k/ you shill

Who are you quoting frognigger?

I pointed out that James Morrison has enough awards and enough actually useful people have called her works masterpieces.

I provided an example. You have just whined.

Excuse me. Toni Morrison. I had a freudian slip there.

People have called Harry Potter a masterpiece.

The most popular book in history was written by a woman.

Women want it all.

They should be glad barring the two, three outliers their brains don't allow for autistic obsession with such things. More time to enjoy life.

But now they want to be validated in their intellectual capacities too?

At what price?

You think you can have your makeup tutorials and write anything profound at the same time?

How many men have written masterpieces?

Conceited dolts, both sides. But women take the cake with their solipsism for sure.

>actually useful people have called her works masterpieces.
>actually useful people

Oh you know, people who are especially powerful who wouldn't give Harry Potter the light of day. Literary academia. And it's been consensus since the 70's she's quite a talented writer, prolific, heartfelt. Meaningful, almost her work is largely undeniably great.

But yes. It is the same as Harry Potter user. There is no noticeable difference.

>You think you can have your makeup tutorials and write anything profound at the same time?

Hahahaha what

Irony. But yes. Middlemarch is the same as Ulysses user. There is no noticeable difference.

Lurk more newfag

I never suggested that? And I never said Middlemarch either. Song of Solomon has near universal praise from literary critics.

She has a Nobel Prize for god's sake. What more do you exactly want to bitch about

Nobody says that here, lurk more before you pretend to be a regular to mass shill

Why are you trying to argue with a shitposter you retarded newfag

>its a wonan plays with language to avoid defending her "point" before resorting to ad hominem episode

pippi the froge is a nigger faggot
prove me wrong

>>its a wonan plays with language to avoid defending her "point" before resorting to ad hominem episode

This thread started out with logical fallacies and word play.

If I wanted my own comeback I'd scrape it off yet tongue. Now nix bitch

Nope

To people actually believe this? Before women had the vote, the upper class females were educated more than the lower class men. Look at Jane Austen for example. Not to mention the female Greek poet fragments. The reason women have published less great things than men is that they trend towards mediocrity. It is a harsh truth that people need to accept and get on with their lives.

>It is a harsh truth that people need to accept and get on with their lives.

Except it isn't. And rich aristocrats are usually not the artists. They're rich aristocrats.

>it isn't
Quality rebuttal, I would expect nothing else from a woman.
>rich aristocrats aren't usually artists
No segment of the population is usually artists, I was simply pointing out that your assertion women had no access to education is utter bunk.

>>Quality rebuttal, I would expect nothing else from a woman.

Ok.

>No segment of the population is usually artists,

That's actually wrong, it's usually disadvantaged people. Throughout history.

You argue exactly like a woman
>thoughtless dismissal of main point
>goes off on tangent

You discredit your sex

Aah yes those members of the literate class, so disadvantaged to the serfs and plebeians below them!

>You argue exactly like a woman

Ok. You said this in the other shill thread.

>You discredit your sex

Hyperbole isn't your strong suit.

>Aah yes those members of the literate class, so disadvantaged to the serfs and plebeians below them!

Do you just think that the poor among men and women don't read. Throughout history Except that's wrong. And most art comes from that point, and from a source of pain. Especially literature. Literature is confrontation.

No shit you dumb bitch there are more disadvantaged people than privileged aristocrats. If you adjusted each population and measured percentage of artists from each then we could properly discuss this topic but nobody's gonna do that shit so fuck you anyway

The poor don't have time to write a novel if they are starving to death.

The second part cant be true can it? Artists tend to be poor, yes I can see that, but poor people tend to be artists? I don't think so.

Somebody please give me evidence in either direction, please. I've always assumed wealthy -> more leisure and freedom -> greater ability to create art unimpeded

>>No shit you dumb bitch there are more disadvantaged people than privileged aristocrats. If you adjusted each population and measured percentage of artists from each then we could properly discuss this topic but nobody's gonna do that shit so fuck you anyway

Nah fuck you.

>The poor don't have time to write a novel if they are starving to death.

And yet they have.

Throughout the majority of history the poor were not literate you utter dunce.

>Somebody please give me evidence in either direction, please. I've always assumed wealthy -> more leisure and freedom -> greater ability to create art unimpeded

Holy shit

>And most art comes from that point, and from a source of pain.
Ahahaha, the poor were literally illiterate.

I accept your admission of defeat and invite you to suck it

Hang on a minute, I'm sensing a discrepancy in your logic here. If poor and disadvantaged people were the most prolific authors throughout history, and women were/are poor and disadvantaged to men, why are there so few female authors?

?

Since the 19th century. Besides when it wasn't literature, it was art. Mostly condemned.

I'm talking creation of art. People at the time who would have otherwise gotten into literature today, were into religion at the time.

>Hang on a minute, I'm sensing a discrepancy in your logic here. If poor and disadvantaged people were the most prolific authors throughout history, and women were/are poor and disadvantaged to men, why are there so few female authors?

At this point in time there are not.

You lost this thread eight posts ago lady.

Why is it impossible for you to directly answer a question

Women equivocate worse than Catholics I swear

>at this point in time
You should be a politician the amount of times you try to weasel out of questions.

Ok

>Why is it impossible for you to directly answer a question

I did answer it, I think you are projecting.

>I'm talking creation of art. People at the time who would have otherwise gotten into literature today, were into religion at the time.
What do you mean by this?

No you didn't. You completely sidestepped the question. I honestly think this worming your way through debate is so unconscious you don't even realise you're doing it. It's sad really.

>I have not read The Waves: The Thread

>What do you mean by this?

People at the time who would have otherwise been literate and wrote within the span of the 19th century to now were focusing into religion or art. That's changed. Things are more secular and literature and music can be focused on in equal amount. On top of this, poor women were largely suppressed and the aristocrats found no reason to write, though literate, because they weren't very creative. Even the men. That said within the last 250 years as more became literate, and feminism was fought for, you see an explosion of women's literature. And many are taught today alongside men because it's actually good well regarded material.

Anyone who was educated on literature and its history would know this. But I know you only came to shitpost here and shill.

Bro this is literally how women are. This cunt got a double dose, but it's the same with all of em.

>No you didn't. You completely sidestepped the question. I honestly think this worming your way through debate is so unconscious you don't even realise you're doing it. It's sad really.

How are you not worming your way through this debate

Because I posed a question that pointed out a flaw in your logic in an attempt to debunk your argument. That's how you're supposed to debate.

The overwhelming majority of highly regarded art/literature/music was not produced by the uneducated pleb masses. Disproven.

Next.

We're double teaming the shit out of you ya dumb whore. You're getting completely trashed and every post you make only serves to further embarrass yourself.

>Because I posed a question that pointed out a flaw in your logic in an attempt to debunk your argument.

You didn't actually.

>The overwhelming majority of highly regarded art/literature/music was not produced by the uneducated pleb masses

They are.

That's fine because I'm going to continue.

>get proven wrong
>n-no

Like I said, next.

You didn't prove me wrong. You just said exactly what you accused me of saying.

>you didn't
>they are
How can a living human being look at these posts and think "yes, that makes sense, I am proving my point". It genuinely terrifies me that you are able to vote, or at least it would if voting was worth a damn.

>How can a living human being look at these posts and think "yes, that makes sense, I am proving my point"

Because it is around the level of argumentation you're currently practicing. If you want different, than try to shill better.

>that's fine, pls continue
Damn boys, this bitch is a freak, shes into getting shitfucked sideways, she loves it

Hey, for what it's worth, I'm a guy and I agree with you. You're wasting your time debating with these idiotic shitheads.

t. numale cuck

I can take multiple small chodes of poor arguments and shit logic.

It's a fairly major factor. Kind of similar to how the vast majority of philosophers were rich, or at the very least middle class.

I wonder what you'd say to Veeky Forums of the past when we could discuss for example, Morrison, without you getting triggered and shilling politically about how the blacks and the women are inferior for weeks on end

To be honest I'd rather let my partner cheat on me than be some bigoted shithead.