Why were all the classics written by males?

They are woman user they have other priorities

Because those who called them to be classics only read males.
Because women didn't write much before because they were denied the position to do so.
Because women who did write and say a certain percentage was actually good were not read with enough attention due to prejudice.

Combine them all you get a 98% male dominated list of "classics".

Hmmm let's look at the gender of those who consider them classics

>enough attention due to prejudice.
Let's be honest every culture viewed women as lesser except for contempary western culture.

>A bunch of /Plebbit/ shit in there
No.mkv

it's a /pol/ doesn't read episode

Women can write all they want and have it easier than men now, they still produce utter shit. You can ignore 100% of literature by women and you would not lose anything of value.

22 get

because you have to at least be a faggot if you want to write a classic, and true dykes are rare.
>all
>not counting the dykes
man, that's a major hole in your literary exposure. let me guess, you were raised by rapey faggots who were worried you liked other people's cocks too much and so bought you lots of books with cocks in them? it happens, sorry about your shitty education senpai

Shit is recent m8 come on be honest with yourself

...

Why does prejudice exist? And don't give a half-assed "muh patriarchy" daddy issues answer

its due to lazy people like you who'd rather consider 1/2 of the population beneath them to boost themselves immediately as opposed to reading legitimately great works by great writers.

I suppose you think anyone who differs radically from the dull popular consensus is always disagreeing to the left

>lazy people like you who'd rather consider 1/2 of the population beneath them to boost themselves immediately

Not him but just because it makes you feel bad doesn't make it false. You don't even dare entertain the idea because you know it's true.

i honestly don't think its true and I think you should read more great works (even if the are written by women)

Can you name some? (not ayn rand pls)

it is false though. ~99% of humanity is utter shit, and the male side makes up about half. literate females have been making classics since there was writing, while their shitty illiterate female and male contemporaries were digging through cow shit for sustenance. the classics aren't as split as OP makes out, it would just make him feel bad if we pointed out he's in the 99% of humanity who are shit despite their efforts and consigned to the dustbin of history, while skilled females and males are remembered by literate societies.

So you're saying that society kept women down because they were mean bullies?

If women cannot even do art without being aided at every step by society, they aren't good artists.

>literate females have been making classics since there was writing
This is false.
>inb4 you post the 15 female authors you know and then claim that they are just as good as male authors

no, he's saying a chick like HD who isn't shit and deserving of being a classic, keeps your shitty prose in check and in the trash where it deserves to be.

What does this have to do with female authors being generally shit?

>he thinks that I'm not comparing sappho and meander
>his soul has no greek nor poetry
look just because you're basically ignorant of the classical period to a level that would be shameful to the point of beatings in a 7 year old victorian male middle class child, does not change history nor the classics. the history of literature is not your self insert fan fic, it gives less of a shit about your fantasy than sappho's

>This damage control

Just quit, faggots. You can name only three of four female works that are part of the canon, whereas there are hundreds of other better works written by males.

This whole thread is retarded women are just less drawn to creativity and writing in general because they had no biological need for it..

>female authors being generally shit
I don't know why you read shitty books, but I bet your taste in men ain't great either if you managed to miss every classic male author with a literary heroine. olol, you probably even like plato. so gay

this will be the fourth i've posted in this thread
also Tale of Genji
Arial
Memoirs of Hadrian
haven't got into Jane Austen, but she's pretty accepted as canon

Are you acting retarded on purpose? Make a coherent point.

thanks

Why are women so bad at debating that they inevitably resort to ad homs?

>user assumes everyone else is as ignorant of canon as him
let's laugh and point at the uneducated some more shall we?
>laughing_private_schoolgrills.jpeg

the perfect novel

>i can't handle complex sentences
Oh, I see why you hate females like Woolf and faggots like Proust. It's okay, Bobby, that book about Spot the dog seeing a big red ball is good too.

You sound like you're raging but trying to pretend to be smug. Probably the estrogen

I never said I hated Woolf or Proust, I said that female writers IN GENERAL are pretty shit and there aren't very many good ones. There are exceptions, but this is a pretty obvious observation.

user admitted he only read shitty female books. He either has no taste and has been reading good books in ignorance, or he has no taste and has been choosing to read bad books in ignorance. Either Schopenhauer would disapprove of, while he was quite okay with ad hominem attacks; errors of means not being errors of conclusions, it is sad to watch idiots perfect their means to an erroneous conclusion.

roll

>You sound like you're raging but trying to pretend to be smug. Probably the estrogen
>let's discuss our feelings
could you be more of faggot?
the majority of all writing is shit, and classics are by definition the exceptional works of a period. the exceptional works of any period are not defined by a gender split, that's just the fanciful imagination of someone who was never expected to need to know history. you're just outing yourself as unfit to judge.

Generally shit != never read a good book by women. But I guess there's no point here because women are mentally only a few steps above children.

You're acting irrational. There is a gender split: the overwhelming majority of exceptional works are written by men.

That women are generally shit is no obstacle to men's writing being as equally generally shit. You're just reinforcing the point I made, while weakening the point you're trying to make about gender. Either that or you think that male writing is not generally shit, which lol, no. They don't have the lexical, register, or grammatic ranges that women show. The majority of men are more shit than the majority of women, if we are to compare like with like. You're surely not claiming that though because it would be more retarded than trying to make no point at all.

lolololololoololoololol epic xD

No, the overwhelming majority of books you know about and consider exceptional are by men. That does not mean you became arbiter of canon, and is in fact a reason to suspect you are not well versed in canon at all.

I'm saying that women are, in general, more shit than men. I'm not saying that everything by men is classic, but men are simply inherently more talented than women. There is no female Shakespeare or Dante.

It's a fact. The "canon" is dominated by males, because males wrote most classic literature. Do you deny this?

That's still prejudice.

I don't know, why do you ask? I guess it is a combination of all those things. If few women write, they don't trust that women who do will be good at it. Bbecause of that, they would deny women from publishing, or at least, not be interested in reading them. Since women are not read and discussed, they also don't believe themselves can write very well and very few of them try. Since they don't try, they actually don't get very good and if they do try, they have to overcome the prejudice to be considered good. It's a circular thing that feeds on itself. This circular thing is what they call patriarchy, I guess.To fight this prejudice is not to say women are better, but it would be exactly to go against the odds, to trust in the odd one out that is always bound to appear. And have this help break the cycle, perhaps make one odd man to read the woman, or one other woman to think she can write, or make one person's criticism of a woman's writing more constructive, perhaps have better books later and so on.

>That's still prejudice.
Stating a fact is prejudice?

Men are not more talented, not when it comes to language.
>There is no female Shakespeare or Dante
Oh god, you think Dante's good, no wonder you liked Plato and have no idea who Praxilla is, even though you'd need to know her meter to read Greek, which also means you're some non classically trained pleb who probably thinks people who can read ancient Greek are a myth.

To be honest, your fantasy is never going to inform any literary debate of merit, and you'd probably like the other Dante over Chrisitina your brain is so broken. I feel kind of bad for you that you think Shakespeare isn't plagiarised in large part from translations of French pop songs of the era, but plebs gonna keep plebbing I guess

It's not society's job to make people feel special and included and encourage them to make art. This is the fundamental difference: women categorically lack the "will to power" that makes men do great things. They will give up at the first obstacle. Obviously this is biological: women need to take care of their children first and foremost if they want their genes to survive.

Nobody goes into art without some obstacles. But women need to be hand holded like children to even approach where men are.

Your definition of canon is clearly more prejudiced against including female works than Victorian definitions of canon were. You're making the prudes look good and better read.

>men are inherently more talented the women
that's too vague to mean anything
having a dick doesn't make playing the piano easier you idiot
its about study and access (and genius)

Are you retarded or just a woman?
>Dante is bad
>Shakespeare is bad
>Plato is less important than some literally who
You are eating the garbage can of ideology, holy shit

>ur jus prejudiced
It's like I'm on tumblr
Testosterone does. Men evolved to have higher intelligence than women.

no, earthsea is one of the best book series for children

>children

the stuff you read as a child is valuable

>such a pussy that she got bullied by pound into changing her name into an acronym

dante is good
>4channer takes on every literary scholar in the world

Dante is as good as Austen: you read them if you like gossip and scandal and womanly feels of injustice for being passed over.
I said Shakespeare was plagiarised from French popular music. Which he was. The balcony scene in Romeo and Juilette (lol you're such a faggot) and the consummation night are direct translations of girly French troubadours. Well, okay, he didn't include the line about the woods in Bethune in the it's not the lark part, but to be fair, he thought people then might know Bethune and Verona were in different parts of Europe.
Plato was less important than Praxilla to the age, and less well known. Plato's also a shitty source, while Xenophon and Aristophanes aren't. Aristophanes expects you to know Praxilla to get half his work, so I see why you think Plato was accurate in his depiction of Aristophanes in the Symposium. Because you're actually that much of a homolalaman.

Your dick seems broken because it doesn't seem to have given you any classical education or taste. See a doctor.