Prove him wrong

I hate to suggest this to you because I don't know you, but maybe you aren't actually fit to judge a filmmaker's entire filmography based on a single film.

If you would like to talk about in more depth what you didn't like, feel free but saying "it was bad" isn't going to convince anyone.

>Less role models and those are very important to the search for self.

Why does your role models have to be the same sex as you? My primary inspirations in the field i try to be creative in are all female, yet I am a male.

Ada Lovelace was pretty cool. So was Hannah Arendt. Joan of Arc. How about Queen Elizabeth? She handled things pretty well.

The problem is Schopenhauer's claim about isolated and partial exceptions. But the bulk of *everything* is shit. All you ever need is one good exception to create a paradigm shift. One Shakespeare, one Dante, one Bach, one Beethoven, one Leonardo..."They haven't created anything of lasting value" sounds like something you'd expect to hear on Veeky Forums. They created him, ffs. And he was no monk, he had a romantic life. Do you think he told this to women he was seeing?

>tfw he probably did like a complete asshole
>tfw that would be kind of amazing

I like Schopenhauer, and I wouldn't want him any other way. Even if some of the stuff he says is pretty crusty.

all women stink worse out of their buttholes than men.

Men's butts smell objectively better

>Why does your role models have to be the same sex as you?

Some themes and subjects, especially in literature and other artistic mediums are gendered and while I don't meant to imply that it's impossible for a woman to connect with those elements in great literature, there is a reason why women are more likely to enjoy Jane Austen than Ernest Hemingway.

Every artist starts at the base level of essentially, no knowledge and no real patience for their art. It is only with time that they grow to enjoy the subtleties of any medium and it is the subject matter that acts as grease on the cogs. For men, there's plenty of material that will likely interest them. Literally hundreds of options of decently written fiction that speak to the young male experience.

The young male experience is frankly and I think understandably not going to interest most young females.

“Perhaps all philosophy boils down to the simple fear that the universe has no need for us: men. I mean, because women are, in a strange sense, more essential to Being than we are…We build machines, create tribal languages in philosophy — like little boys with secret codes in their clubhouse — to get back at the universe because she has failed to give us a function. All our works, male works, will perish in history — history, a male concept of time, will vanish, too, but the culture of women goes on, the rhythms of birth and destruction, the Way of absorption, passivity, cycle and epicycle.” – Charles Johnson, Oxherding Tale

Literally this, but also
Women are more likely to read male writers than men are to read female writers. There's great stuff on the differences between men and women by Adelle Waldman. She praises how Tolstoy wrote about the differences between men and women, i.e. with delicacy and care rather than impotent rage and sweeping generalisations.

>Arendt
Sucked Heidegger's dick to get what she wanted.

Lovelace and lizie are pretty based though.

Eliot Rodger: The philosopher

>art
>measuring something important

I read this to my girlfriend and she agrees with him

The last bit is overwhelmingly true. Women lose all respect for men who dote on them.

Conversely, they respect men who treat them like shit.

Schopenhauer must have been highly respected.

Someone already touched on it, but the weakness of this argument is that all forms of genius, especially works of genius that will stand the test of time, are rare.

To suggest instances of female genius are negligible due to rarity is to dismiss genius intrinsically.

Neither can we pretend they have had the same opportunity to prove their genius - save in recent and modern history.

>bumping this thread

>bumping this thread

They're his views. They may some validity but they're his. It's an interesting essay, that's why it is still so controversial. I think he reaches quite a bit though.

I hate the fixation with it though. You've got the /r9k/-types on one side using it to justify their sorry states, then you have the fragile souls aghast that anyone with repute would dare say anything bad about women, even though Schopenhauer isn't near the only one to have done it. I think many of those same people may be sexist themselves.

Lovelace is worthy, but not for the meme reason of "being the first programmer" that she's always portrayed as.

>incapable of a SINGLE truly great achievement
>ANYTHING AT ALL of lasting value
>just one example isn't enough to disprove this
What did he mean by this?

Women have less genetic diversity so this is the expected outcome

I think the most important part of this quote is "but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us EVEN IN THEIR EYES".

He is basically saying "be alpha, don't give women too much respect or they will think of you as a pussy". This is basically 18th century pick-up artistry.

Someone please prove him wrong, I think that he is 100% right and we share the same view on women. This is not because im a bitter virgin, im pretty bitter, but im not a virgin and i can get girls whenever i want. I just hate them so much. Someone prove him wrong so i dont have to hate women all the time anymore.

Dont know about the other guy, but Tolstoy has hardly deemed women as equals, that one is pretty clear from his writings.

>basic competence is now greatness

>Some themes and subjects, especially in literature and other artistic mediums are gendered
No, that is only an element of interpretation. The fact that women are less likely to enjoy male writers is not adequate evidence-countless other variables could explain that.

The rest of your post is more or less an adequate understanding of the development of readers, but says positively nothing about art itself, which is an artifact independent of experience

most men are worth shit too
sexism is just as retarded as feminism
or any ideology with absoulute pseudo moral systems aka all of them
when ever i hear someone saying "im a xxx-ist!" what i hear is "i like other people doing the thinking job for me"
get real

just accept that women and men are different, dont expect women to behave like men. i am also hesitant on even trying to understand them. follow your desires and act as a confident man that provides security and women will respond

wow you're such an individual.

Women have raised most of the men that have done anything of lasting value.

>Sounds like someone hurt him.

Low energy response

> Argument
> That mess
Try again?

This. Women raise, men do.

For most of ancient history up until a few hundred years ago, women were revered for their ability to create life, raise children and tend to the home. When it comes to that, women are without doubt the world champions, none can even compare.

It's only in modern times that we have started expecting women to excel in the same fields and men, and of course they will seem inadequate then, no shit.

women will respond? As i said i can get girls np. So i just want one who is actually smart. Like REALLY smart.

user, which books about budding womanhood were your favorites as a young boy?

>George Eliot, writer of perhaps the greatest British novel
>guy
ok m8

>Tolstoy has hardly deemed women as equals, that one is pretty clear from his writings.
That could be deemed from the society in which he lived and wrote about, but not even modern feminists have much of a problem with how Tolstoy wrote women. He wrote much more realistic women than the vast majority of male writers.

This

There's a great Adelle Waldman piece about how often for women in women's writing, the women are looking for an intellectual equal, while in men's writing, men are often looking for a status symbol.

I've met plenty of women who are smarter than me and I've had a relationship with one. I don't think I need someone particularly smart, but just someone who has a unique way of seeing the world which resonates with me. Very smart people are often very difficult.

an intellectual equal would be perfect, i cant do relationships, because every girl i am with will turn out to be severely retarded, unable to reason and just plain annoying.

> every girl i am with will turn out to be severely retarded
stop seeking out people like this then

PROVE HIM WRONG.

i havent found one that i have confidence in

read virginia woolf's a room of one's own

> prove him wrong

and hegel's logic

I agree, but I still think you can be happy about being born where you are and still appreciate your own culture and thus want to protect it.

My ex was smarter than me. She was a keener reader and a better writer. I ended up breaking up with her for unrelated reasons. We could talk to each other about writing, which is a very, very fulfilling thing to do with someone. To truly see and be seen by another person.

There were other problems in the relationship but if you can't truly see the other person as an equal, even if they're different, what's the point in being in the relationship in the first place? How can you connect to someone who you don't feel "gets you"?

yes, i agree, so my im fucked then

Part of it is a conscious choice to want to see the good in people. If you can't do that it's going to be very difficult.

There's nothing good in women, try the redpill

There is good in women, try life

Emmy Noether