Do women lack competiveness, that's why they havent produced anything of worth in art?

t. talentless hack

Leave

It's because of evolution.

Make me.

? Did you even read? It's literally the opposite of what you're implying

Can you read? He said that talent was inborn and you denied that.

And how would i be the 'talentless hack' when i say it's not inborn? Talent being inborn is literally T H E excuse for stupid people. What you said makes no sense

You don't see women giving their whole lives to the pursuit of truth or beauty. They're middlebrows at best. Art is a fashion accessory to them.

wew lad, it went straight over your head

I guess. Can you explain

Cry more libcuck

when will this coping meme end?

true you aren't shit without a good work ethic, but the feeling for sound, pace, rhyme and wordplay is born from an innate talent. You can learn to construct a plot, learn to write basic prose, but just stop hoping you can somehow grow this sensitivity.
Everyone accepts this as truth in other art, or sport, or science and math. Talent is not handed out equally.

You can't make up for something you inherently lack, that's like saying an ugly person can turn beautiful by looking in the mirror each day.

>/v/, /pol/, and /r9k/ are so buttmad about getting btfo'd in every thread they made a chart for damage control
top fuk'n zozzle m8

I've always wondered about this. There really have been no great female painters. Or truly phenomenal writers (though George Eliot, Jane austen, Edith Wharton, etc are all great).

In terms of poetry thereally are rare exceptions like Emily Dickinson and waaayyy back Sappho (though I've always wondered if she was actually great or if she is just the most complete body of work we have from her era, her Greek is hard as shot though).

Didn't mean to quote the talentless hack

>Sappho (though I've always wondered if she was actually great or if she is just the most complete body of work we have from her era, her Greek is hard as shot though).
Nah. Sappho was universally praised by Greek poets, musicians, and philosophers. It's a trend in history that great women who are on par with the best men are non-judgementally praised by the "sexist" establishment, there just isn't that many of them. Feminists want to elevate average women to the heights of the best men, but it will never happen.

Well, I think the inborn talent you are referring to is the facticity you are born in (society, family etc.). I don't believe a newborn have more talent than another newborn

>I don't believe a newborn have more talent than another newborn
This is just wishful thinking. There are demonstrable biological/racial influences of intelligence.

>Read harold bloom so you can become a canonist like me and unwarrantedly call people who disagree with your viewpoint fucking retards on the internet!
No thanks kid

I don't want to pull the feminism card and tank an already shitty thread, but women were never educated, never taken seriously, rarely taught to read or write, weren't allowed to speak as men do, and held little social influence.
There's so few famous woman artists because it wasn't allowed. Virginia Woolf only became a writer after pursuing her own education in her father's study because women didn't go to school. She even wrote that "anonymous(writers) is often a woman." I think it was Austen that would write articles for newspapers, knowing full well that they wouldn't be published because she was a woman. George Eliot's real name is like Mary or some shit, she used the pseudonym "George" so that people would take her work seriously.
And if thats the gymnastics that those three had to perform to get their work into our hands decades later, imagine how much artistic potential was lost.
You cannot simultaneously oppress a group and demean them for not performing among the best.
I think it was Malcolm X that said "they cripple a bird's wing and condemn it for not flying as well as they."
>inb4 bluepilled numale cuck etc. etc.
fight me fat faggots

Women didn't have rights because they're inferior to men, not the other way around

I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.

I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.

That pic is myopic af. Men are psychos with oneitis dude. All that attention to physical detail paid in art? Useless in social interaction. That same attitude manifests itself in obsession and manipulation in relationships with women. And somehow men have tricked themselves into thinking this is acceptable and even admirable behavior. A Room of One's Own deals with this double standard directly. Men worship women as objects while ignoring their agency. I know some pillfag is gonna tear into this comment and tell me all the ways women are inferior or of weaker mental fortitude or ambition, but that would be missing the point.

No one is saying that love is is without fault or pathological forms. Just that women are incapable of it, and basically do nothing except passively benefit from it like succubi.

They're called containment boards for a reason. Nuthin personnel, kid

>>>/reddit/

>women are incapable of love
Love=/=obsession
Thats what i mean by myopic. Men define love in terms of how they act or think or feel while in love. Anyone who says women can't love has simply never been loved by a woman.

Inferior because they started getting opressed early by muscular men

But why were they "oppressed". You can't say men oppressed women for the fun of it, if they could be on par with men they would have been allowed to contribute to society more. But because of evolved roles and natural sexual realities (ie the inherent submissiveness of women) they were inferior to men in terms of masculine things. Women are better at men at cooking and raising children, but not making art or science. Great women are the exceptions that prove the rule.

It's the luxury of technological capitalism that has allowed women to be dominant, it's the breakdown of social roles.

They're wrong

opinion on the base of personal experience/judgement rather than evidence. what do you think anons?

1. Will to power, 2. The opressing started way before any art and science became anything at all (by opressing i mean a kinda unconcsious valuation of the sexes nature(what they ought to do and be)). 3. The difference between a man and woman is nothing but the symbolism we apply to it (and genitalia etc). (It's all spooks mate). 4. Philosophers have seen this for a long time, Nietzsche -> the french. The opressing imo have little to do with capitalism and technology

Not the guy you are replying to, but I just wanted to say you write like an insufferable prick. I do agree with a couple of the points you make, though.

>implying biological differences are a social construct

There are differences between men and women. Men are better at spatial visualization, logic, and mathematics. Women are better at detecting emotions (empathy), they have a greater sense of smell, and are better at writing/reading.

They've posted it every time someone tells frogposters to fuck off and stop making off-topic bullshit threads like this one for the past couple days, so it must be new. If they convince themselves that the only people who disagree with them are newfag redditors, they don't even have to justify their own garbage.

Sorry, i'm on my phone

>better at writing

Maybe in diaries...

I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.
funny you mention it, im a musician too and played the bass in jazz band back in high school. you're certainly correct on all accounts, and I'm drawing parallels to driving habits. Women receive far less traffic citations than men, but men are almost always better drivers. I'm the best driver in my family and I have like seven tickets because I'm also a risk-taker, if you can extrapolate that risk taking to music where there are no citations for pushing boundaries.
>I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.
Idk, I don't feel inclined to jump to one side of a dichotomy, it could easily be both, but there's quite a bit of context to be looked at. Being a musician was a viable profession back in the day, back when men did the breadwinning and women did the family raising. My uncle was a professional musician for a while, I worked in a studio for a while, it's a good way to hone experimentation in one's craft while also fulfilling your social duties. Furthermore, these virtuoso. female musicians could have been working on other musical explorations that have gone unheard and unstudied because their passions and hobbies are sacrificed for their families. I personally know a phenomenal female singer who wrote purposefully original music but stopped to raise a son. Their music is only heard by social circles, church, etc.

What makes you think it is just about drive, though? Rather than innate ability?

Ah, fair enough.

t. Buzzfeed author

Oppressing? Mate, in Europe upper class women of just 150 years ago would have been expected to: speak their native language perfectly, speak French and probably Italian, be pretty well read, be proficient in some kind of art be in embroidery, sketching, etc, and be at least passable accomplished musicians. All the while they had to be able to be relatively interesting in conversation.

The fact that they didn't do anything with this ridiculously expensive education is no one's fault but their own. Some did do shot with it (Austen, Eliot) and we're appreciated (Austen was very appreciated in her own time).

The fact that so few women produce anything of value is not because of some great conspiracy of oppression.

>women are more empathetic than men
This is completely false

t. Newfag who just popped in from credit/tumblr

Yeah i might have expressed me wrong by using the word 'opressed'. Ofcourse it is their fault for doing nothing with what they know, but that's the point- they werent expected to and werent pushed to it from the start for others reason as men were

And also, when other people expect nothing of them intellectually, they will also play that role

I really hope you're baiting with this

>of worth

God you people are pathetically delusional.

In the future art will be more intimate but there will be no great art which is fine. We will have more than enough by then. Competition in the arts is a meme brought about by the markets.

That sounds horrible. Making art bland and mediocre for the sake of equality.

I think that's accurate.

That's not what they're saying at all. In fact thats the opposite of what theyre saying.
The world will be saturated with art. there will be no "niche" art because everything will be "niche"; highly specific to a certain taste. "Intimate." Like how some people love reading some shitty fanfic of some shitty show, that's sort of a precursor to the future of art. There will be no universal or objectively great works, greatness will be individualized and probably incomparable

A woman's social value is based primarily on what she looks like. A man's value is based primarily on what he accomplishes. Men have a much greater incentive to master their craft, whereas women engage in hobbies mostly for the enjoyment.

>There are differences between men and women
Stating the obvious

>Men are better at spatial visualization, logic, and mathematics.
True

>Women are better at detecting emotions (empathy)
Empathy is not the ability to detect emotions; that's called emotional awareness, which women are indeed better at. Empathy is the ability to see or understand things from the perspective of another, which is something that women are crippled at.

>and are better at writing/reading.
False. Women tend to be have better verbal/social skills and better vocabularies, but in order to be a good writer you do need not only a rich vocabulary, but to be good at structure, composition, and creation, which men tend to be better at.

Women only love when it benefits them.

Women create children. What would they need to create art?

Seriously, this.

>Women create children.
It takes two to tango.

>I don't understand sexual dimorphism
Sex is cheap, eggs are expensive.

/pol/, leave.

He's right. Women are inherently more valuable than men because of their reproductive abilities. The privilege of men in relation to women has always come at the cost of being disposable. That's the crux of why feminism is such a joke; women want to retain their higher value but have all of the privileges of men as well, with none of the responsibilities.

...

>they havent produced anything of worth in art
Have you?

>who is virginia woolf

One male can tango with a loooot of females

>a few women writers vs the entire
male Western canon
Really made me think

Women weren't allowed to or expected to produce anything back until a century or so ago. Now that female liberation happened they are already surpassing their male peers in higher education and the arts.

>women are surpassing their male peers in higher education and the arts.

m8, that's because 'higher education' and 'art' have become so subverted with bullshit that achievement has been changed from original thought to conformity.

If you're an ambitious male and you care about your grades in college, you learn this fact very quickly. If you're a girl who has lived her life in the herd mentality of high school femininity, drinking whatever professors vomit into your mouth comes naturally.

Same thing with art. Go look for literary agents online. 90 percent are women. 90 percent of those women list their interests are something to do with SJW bullshit. Now tell me, if I want to publish something that isn't about Janiqua the transgendered muslim commie, how easy is it going to be? The valve on society's artistic outlet has been completely tightened in favor of conformity to leftist pro-woman ideals. Perhaps this is an inevitability, as the women are, by far, the largest consumers of novels and the like.

Quantity does not equal quality, though.

women can be extremely competitive. mostly with other women. i mean, it's a stereotype that women hate women. and men can be extremely competitive too, but mostly with other men. you dont see a lot of men trying to do stuff women do better than women. im sure you can think of an example maybe, but the general trend is against it. we compete with people who are like us. who are the same gender, who are doing the same job, who are living on the same suburban block. those are our rivals. also, if women havent competed in what's traditionally been seen as men's work, it's prob because when we look for role models - when we try to figure out who we can grow up to be - we look for guidance mostly to other members of our gender. so if men have been most of the great artists throughout time, part of that has to be the result of younger men finding role models in older men over and over. i mean, do you really think that the reason most of the great renaissance artists were men was that they tried training girls but the girls all botched it?

also, is art really driven by competition? artists are no strangers to jealousy of other artists, its true, but even without this element, art would still be produced, no? i think the element more primary and crucial than competition to art production is imitation. 'that's cool, i like that, im gonna do something like that.' competition can be a spur to art production, but so can financial necessity. a writer can write a novel because he wanted to write a better one than his best friend did. or a writer can write a novel for money. so competition makes art, money makes art. a writer can write a novel because he wants to be known as a great writer, wants the applause. the desire for glory makes art. or he just likes writing and through genuine interest improves his technique over time. so even if you eliminated competition among artists, and no artist ever got jealous of another, you would still have people making art. applause, money, and sincere interest in the work would continue to be motivations.

AHAHAHA WOMYNS ARE SO STUPID AMIRITE BROS XD
FUCK THESE DUMB SLUTS
KEK FEMINISM IS RETARDED SARGON IS /OURGUY/

i'm so lonely :'

won't argue the second point but the first...

In say, 18th century Europe, wouldn't a literate woman generally have about 80 years od leisure to write a book or something? Monied men I guess had to do a little work; the likes of jane Austen never did anything but read/write?

most of the great artists throughout history have been the least manly of men

a lot of limp-wristed faggy aristocrats and treehuggers

hmm but Veeky Forums is very /pol/, no?

Veeky Forums is the polar opposite of /pol/, user

This is a ver un-Veeky Forums way of thinking.

sounds pretty blue pilled my dude you need to read a book on women

Because men and women have different brains and goals. Women care about family, relationships. Men care about work and lolis.

Only if you're an easily triggered reddit/tumblr refugee.

nobody is saying that, but keep acting like a child, that's a great argument

>>>/reddit/
>>>/tumblr/

Great things come from competition, which is almost exclusively a male trait. You can't take this element away and get art that isn't shit.

If you don't make anything of yourself, it is your own fault.

It is not the rest of the world's job to constantly be telling you that you have to be some big shot.

>Women care about family
Funny.

>women weren't encouraged hard enough

love this one

>92 replies to the same shitpost that's been discussed for 10+ years on here.

Never change Veeky Forums. Never change.

if they wheren't inferior how did they end up getting opressed checkmate women

>Ofcourse it is their fault for doing nothing with what they know, but that's the point- they werent expected to and werent pushed to it from the start for others reason as men were

no one expected Ogg to make fire either, but he fucking did it

Post on Veeky Forums, you will regret it; post on /pol/, you will regret that too; post on Veeky Forums or post on /pol/, you will regret both. Even remembering that I don't really see why it is un-Veeky Forums to notice the difference between extreme-right and extreme-left.

Protip: oppressed is spelled with two p's

Well, Veeky Forums isn't really extreme left, and also I didn't mean un-Veeky Forums in the sense of not left, but in the sense of careless thinking and judging.

Nobody pushes men to do great things. They get the self-determination and drive to do it themselves. Men do shit, women don't. That's why women love men who are "doers", she attaches herself to a man like that because she knows she can't do much herself.