Why is there no woman Shakespeare? The closest you have is Jane Austen who basically just writes imaginary gossip

>H.D.

Ugh.

umm actually, us men live shorter lives so we feel more pressure to do something. Don't believe it? Look it up, it's called the life gap and it disadvantages males significantly. We have less time, so we make more of it, it's simple.

>Mira Gonzales
I just googled her, the fuck is this

"I am looking at people who are dancing and touching each other
I am drinking vodka with ice and feeling incredibly fucked
I wonder if anyone feels more lonely now than they felt an hour ago
when they were alone in their rooms looking at things on the internet"

good shit, actually

sexism

it is post-irony, millennial detachment, like a mexican murakami

>women are equal, that's why they have never achieved as much as men in the history of mankind, it's just those meany male bullies

H.D. should have been the flagship of modernism. Don't forget that.
Better than Pound, Elliot, Woolf, Joyce , Crane, Years and all the lessers

>implying any of those writers are Shakespeare-tier
I'll grant you Sappho, but she was a lesbian and therefore not a real woman

She had some good poems but she's not on the same level as Pound, Eliot, or Joyce

True. Its not like men literally owned women and are physically superior wich gives them power(and of course we know that men are not violent,and are not willing to impose anything)

the strongest female chess player in the world isn't even in the top 100 overall players
what does that tell you about women?

>women are physically weaker and gained a lot from being submissive
>no no no, their brains didn't develop to be less intelligent than men's, don't you know that evolution doesn't apply to brains? ugh fucking sexists

She has all the mythic complexity without the needless obscurantism.
She's more musical than Pound.
Ambitious than Eliot.
Joyce may be her equal, but she was more prolific

>She's more musical than Pound.
Wrong.
>Ambitious than Eliot.
Wrong.

You're just overrating he because she's a woman. Nobody cared about HD more than they did, say, Richard Aldington, until feminist criticism became a thing.

Sure lets say it was a "deal" or trade off. But that doesnt mean that if you were a womem you had the same chances to do lit or get educated.
Do you have bilogical proof of your claims?
What about IQ tests?

The thing is: you're not supposed to get success or "chances" handed to you. Men have become great writers with much worse obstacles in front of them. If women can't even muster the willpower to write unless everyone is "encouraging" them to do so, why should we think that they're so great?

I don't care she's a woman. I care that she shows a way into the highest levels of modernism without random passages in Greek/Latin/Japanese but through a clear and methodical layering of meaning.
I'm no different than those Wallace Stevens fans that are convinced he's the best. You just assume people only like women artists out of political reasons due to your own issues

>True. Its not like men literally owned women

Hot desu.

/thread

Please stop arguing that women are just as good as men in the field of art. You're embarrassing yourself.

In a perfect world, men would write books and only women would read them.

What obstacles? Surely women would have the same obstacles that those men.
Its not about encouraging,its a about stfu or ill smack you up bitch.
Also imagine what value you are given since you are little if a man can own you like a fucking dog.
The same could be said if we were in 1900 "wweeeeell if women are so great then why arent more women engineers or scientists,because they have the same chance as men!"
Ohhhh wait ,those jobs are actually balancing now.
Still waiting for those IQ tests

>Men have become great writers with much worse obstacles in front of them

>IQ
while the question whether any sex has average higher iq is still unsolved, most researchers agree that males show greater variance in mean IQ and g scores, meaning there are more retarded-tier males as well as genius level males than females

They're only "balancing" because of affirmative action. Do you not see what's wrong with this? If women could contribute just as much, they would have. Do you think men wanted to stifle their own progress because they hated women so much?
>What obstacles? Surely women would have the same obstacles that those men.
>Its not about encouraging,its a about stfu or ill smack you up bitch.
Women in almost every society have lived pampered lives, being doted on and paid for by her beta husband and only having to raise kids. Women in Victorian society were all expected to learn piano; why did none of these women become great composers? Why, with so much time on their hands, did they not become great writers?
>inb4 they didn't get an education
Neither than their husbands. Most people in history were not educated.

>TFW people don't understand the difference between a Holocaust survivor's memoirs needing to survive 30 years at most versus a work being disregarded for centuries and how that might affect its publication history

Yes, I'm sure a lot of men were told that they weren't allowed to study or pursue their interests because they're mentally and emotionally inferior and they're designed to serve men, so they need to stay home and look pretty.
I'm also sure so many men were required by law to obey their husbands.
Shut the fuck up.

you're VASTLY overstimating the impact of affirmative action

and about the rest of your post, I hate to sound like a pinko commie but you need to be more aware of how structures of oppression and control actually work

>implying I'm talking about the Holocaust
Tons of great male writers were born poor, or were lonely, or mentally ill, etc.
>ugh read Derrida
If you believe in the "oppression" meme you're a retard
>ugh if only ppl respected women!!!!

you're a meninist, aren't you

I couldn't care less about Derrida, I'm not even approaching this issue from a philosophical position - it's about historical facts

you sound like a /pol/ fucktard or a randroid

>Jane Austen
>closest to Shakespeare
m9, she's not even in the same format. Are you only know one female author, and, if so, why did you chose such a shitty one?

Read Ryder and realise you could be asking for so much more if you want regurgitations.

>Being lonely or mentally ill is the same as systematic belittling and subjugation.

Also, name me a surf that wrote a great classic. Name a classic by someone who was born and died in bondage.

This. Name a classic written by someone in a vegetative state. Name a classic written by someone with claws for hands.

>women were in the same position as serfs and had to waste their lives performing physical labour
>women were born and died in bondage

>Also, name me a surf that wrote a great classic. Name a classic by someone who was born and died in bondage.
you sound pretty stupid

>surf
I assume you mean serf. Purlevski's memoirs are translated to English for certain, but serfs memoirs aren't that uncommon.
>born and died in bondage
Aesop

I'm not sure if you can compare Shakespeare and Austen like that in terms of the stuff they're writing about. Shakespeare adapts history in his most famous plays, while Austen works on a much smaller scale by writing about her contemporaries.
And this hasn't necessarily anything to do with gender, just think of Martial's Epigrams for example. They deal with this or that guy, sometimes real, sometimes imaginary, so they're the same gossip.
Hell, it's like comparing Rome to Seinfeld.

why are there literally ZERO (0) fields that women have made the majority of groundbreaking works of art, discoveries in science, etc.?

"muh oppression" only works for so long desu

>ZERO (0) fields that women have made the majority of groundbreaking
women studies
feminist studies

touche

Oh yes, because as we all know, there have never been any cases of men claiming women's scientific discoveries for their own glory (when women's discoveries weren't simply ignored), or women writing under male pseudonyms to have even a glimmer of a chance of getting published.

If you're not sold on the oppression angle, perhaps you might be willing to acknowledge that there is no way in many of these cases to really know?

I feel bad for all the women out there who still believe in the "we were oppressed so that's why we aren't as smart!!!" meme. Well, now that you aren't oppressed, please show me all the great women geniuses out there, and ask yourself honestly if they compare to the great male geniuses. Where is the female Kripke? The female Pynchon? You can only use that excuse for so long before starting to recognize that things aren't so perfect after all. Males have a statistically higher chance of being geniuses than women, period. Just give up, please. I'm sure there are some female geniuses, but on the whole, just admit you lost the war.

>You can only use that excuse for so long
ask any feminist and she will tell you females are still opressed in the western world

He said majority if discoveries. The odd female discovery, invention or advancement really is odd. It's great, you know, that they did what they did. But it isn't the norm. Hence, what he said (which you're replying to) is completely correct.

There's are 0 legitimate fields which women have come up with the majority of *things*. Women's studies and feminist studies don't count.

Women are embarrassing.

Stop posting.

Probably because most women, until very recently, had the majority of their lives taken up by child-rearing activities and didn't have time to write books. Not to mention women don't like to break new ground and just like to copy what men have already done. There's a good image I've seen on other boards that describes the reality that females will get bored in their own spaces quickly and try to insert themselves inside whatever men are doing for attention.

LMAO

>this thread
it's like i'm on /r9k/ or r/theredpill
sad bitter virgins

>everyone who disagrees with me is a virgin!!!
Yeah, ok.

what a quotable thesis from a fellow virgin brigand belonging to a dichotomy of 'cunt destroyers'

truly adequate chap

this reads like a femanon /r9k/ shitpost

HOLY SHIT ITS THE WINTERCORE QT

They are half right you know. Most cultured women never did anything "unlady" like. Ergo, they didn't tread much on the male dominated areas (which are initially male dominated due to the age old position of the women as the house caretakers and child raisers). On Shakespeare's time the most cultured ladies might have read high literature, but would never to actually practice the discipline.

a glorified tumblr post
no discernible talent

>kripke
>genius
TOP KEK

>If Austen is comparable to Chaucer as a craftsman in irony and George Eliot comparable to Richardson as a moral psychologist of the Protestant temperament, then Dickinson is quite comparable to some of the subtlest aspects of Shakespearean representation.

Emily Dickinson always BTFOs /r9k/. The perfect embodiment of ascended NEEThood is a woman. Top kek

Off the top of my head, Rosalind Franklin contributed a lot to the discovery of DNA's structure, but was not acknowledged, even though her male coworkers agreed she had a lot to do with it.

The problem with "why aren't women doing more" is that women did a lot. We just never hear about it, and so we assume it isn't there.

She never had that room of her own.

>one example
>didn't even do it all herself
women, folks