Femanons on Veeky Forums

>this thread

...

Wait, I didn't know women were smart enough to write books. Now I realise how stupid I was. I mean, all these recipe books came from somewhere, right?

see

>pushing a shitty "get out REEE" thread
you're even worse, you know.

You really have no life to copy paste your shit in all threads.

see I just want the rabble to leave so we can have good discussions again.

Have you ever heard of the saying "preach your own sermon"; as in your quest to vanquish rabbling, yourself created quite a rabble in a thread of your own.

>All threads are about books made by men
I see you are fucking new

The only female authors who really get mentioned here are Woolf, Shelley, Dickinson, the Brontes, Connor, Oates, and Rand, usually only to be denounced or proclaimed inferior to male authors.

The way I recommend books will depend on whether you're a man looking for a female perspective or a woman who has difficulty relating to male-authored books, because those books which are authored by the common female are more likely to be enjoyed by women. The famous female authors are those who modeled their styles after the men they read, so the differences will be subtle.

What I mean is, men consider even the best female authors inferior to men by default because they are less able to understand a women's mind. I find it strange, because some of the female writers who get knocked around on here I find are a lot better than their male counterparts, but that's just part of being human and being able to relate to those who are most similar to you.

Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" gets mentioned a decent amount, though more because it's an approachable reference for people starting with the Greeks than anything else.

Have people here really shit all that much on Flannery O'Connor, though? I haven't seen it.

Connor less so than the others, but whenever she's brought up, someone will say, "She isn't THAT good. No woman is better than Joyce or Shakespeare or [insert famous male author]." People here are really unable to take work for what it is, as if there is one sole book that is the BEST and everything else is rubbish because it's different.

Even though all of the authors I mentioned are already highly distinguished. Of course they're good. They aren't really comparable.

In Dickinson's case you really could put her alongside her male contemporaries (Whitman, Emerson, etc) as an equal, though

>What I mean is, men consider even the best female authors inferior to men by default because they are less able to understand a women's mind.

No.

She doesn't get talked about much here and I can't recommend everything in her catalogue but Ruth Ozeki has written, what in my opinion, is one of the better novels written in the last 10 or so years

>pic related

Otherwise Woolf gets some attention, admittedly less than Joyce but, depending on your view, that may or may not be deserved.

Coincidentally, at the time of writing this, the thread immediately above this one is related to Woolf's prose. There's more male authors than women authors and there's more men on Veeky Forums than women but if you come here more than twice you'll see women authors discussed.

White men exist who like philosophers, many of which are white and male. If you're considering race and gender that much when it comes to what you consume, this board might not be the best fit for you. Regardless, enjoy your stay.

This is interesting. I'm not sure that I agree with all of it but there's a good bit of truth in most of what's said. I think Woolf is loved quite considerably, even in regards to the best male authors. You're right though, people tend to relate best to those who they can sympathize with. I don't think race or gender plays as much of a factor as you imply though.

Still, good shit.

This board is an example of the general male attitude towards female authors. Having a high female readership is seen as a negative here because men value a woman's mind less. Women make up the majority of readers, and men argue away that all they read is trash, with nothing to back this up other than that they are women.

>Women make up the majority of readers, and men argue away that all they read is trash, with nothing to back this up other than that they are women.
The majority of what is read (romance and YA books) is trash, so women making up the majority of readers doesn't really mean much one way or the other.

>but whenever she's brought up, someone will say, "She isn't THAT good"

This can literally be said about any author that is ever brought up on this board. It's a place for a collection of elitists. Joyce is shit on, one thread will have someone stating And another will say he's absolute overrated shit. If you think an author is good or interesting, throw them out there, some people are likely to agree with you (assuming they actually aren't shit) and some will tell you they're shit. Most people on here don't care about gender.

There is a bias towards male authors desu, just look at some of the posts in this thread.

By what measure are romance and YA books trash?

It does happen to every writer here, but when the male writers are criticized no one says, "Male authors cannot compare to female authors," while the inverse is said. I agree that most people don't outwardly care about gender, I'm only pointing out that it's more likely that a man will dislike or be uninterested in a work which is female-authored, whereas female readers probably read a great deal of male-authored works.

>Woolf, Shelley, Dickinson, the Brontes,
all top tier the fuck are you on
>Connor, Oates,
never seen them mentioned here tb h, but I'm not usually in that type of thread
>and Rand
might as well throw in Rupi Kaur, too, if you're going to bring up meme authors.
Paglia gets some discussion, too, mostly positive. Beauvoir is usually brought up in the context of Sartre, but her ideas still get bandied about.

Do you want to start a thread on Judith Butler? Which female authors should Veeky Forums talk about?

One only need to look at an iq graph for men vs women to understand that women are on average more average than men (more hive-minded too, see Durkheim). The dumbest and worst people are earth are men, and the smartest too. A population with a very small amount of deviation equals a population with mediocre taste and that will struggle to produce geniuses. Add to that the historical domination of males and it's easy to see why there are many more great male authors than female ones.

Having a high female readership is seen as a negative because women read on average more than men but have worst taste.

''By what measure are romance and YA books trash?

I hope this is bait.

I have no idea where you've got this information from. It sounds like you had this idea suggested to you and now try to apply it everywhere you look. Sophomore year is tough but you'll get through it.

>This board is an example of the general male attitude towards female authors.

I think the site you're thinking of is

>''By what measure are romance and YA books trash?
If it's so self-evident, please explain yourself.

Most people here are male. Most authors, historically and contemporary are male. Of course there's a bias. Who is arguing this?

Can't speak to YA but I agree. There are multiple cunts on this page. Some can justify it, others are bitter, a few are dumb. They'll figure it out or get over it or read a book they love that's written by a woman.

>women
>philosophers

OP?!?! What is going on?

My brother uses that site for literature and writing and I'm trying to respect his privacy by not going there.

It isn't that I mind this attitude terribly much because the Dead Sea won't miss a grain of salt, it's only that there is a bias here against female writers and denying that would be disingenuous.

There isn't any particular bias against women on Veeky Forums that doesn't already exist in the wider world of literary fiction, where most of the 'great' writers historically have been men.

can I save this rare Georg

Probably not. It's just annoying seeing "Woolf is shit, kys" as the first response to a thread.

This gets us into the ''prove that the sky is blue'' problem. To anyone with a functioning pair of eyes, it's obvious that the sky is blue. To anyone with some literary, or just taste period, it's obvious that YA and romance books are bad. But demonstrating that one or the other is true out of any reasonable doubt is difficult. Still, I'll give you some bullet points.

1) They say nothing about nothing, mindless escapism. They are only able to say something if you select an ideological lens when thinking about them, and then you're ultimately saying something about the lens you're using, and not the book itself.

2) The books are generally idiotic and have poor prose.

3) They exist as a product first and as art second, assuming there's anything artistic that you can find in them. This is an important one.

4) Why read literature? Because it's enjoyable in a deeper way than just reading books, in the same way a game of chess is more stimulating than a game of rock-paper-scissor or that a well prepared meal is better than a bag of lays.

Because it makes you more interesting to yourself and to others, Bloom said something interesting about that but I can't find it.

Because it allows you to understand the world you live in (and the world of ideas) in a non-superficial manner.

And lastly, and this is in my opinion the most important one, because reading literature will allow to ''train'' or ''hone'' your aesthetic sensibilites, and therefore your taste. Without good taste, you will not be able to appreciate thing to their just worth and you will not able to creat anything authentic.

Reading YA or romance novels will not make you more interesting to you or others, it will not make you understand anything, it is only enjoyable in a shallow manner and it will ABSOLUTELY NOT develop your sensibility.

This wasn't denied. Gender is considered a shallow topic.

^^this

>letting shitposts get under your skin
you are the weakest race

And people disagreed with it. That's how this board works.

Bring back butters.

On Goodreads anons like her very, very much.

trips of truth.

re
>femanons are different to anons
you're the kind of identity politics idiot who should trip so we'd all block you. every user here is potentially really a penguin tapping shit out on the exterior computer panel of a south pole research station.
the assumption we're all or mostly male means as much as the assumption we're all or mostly female. it's something that has no value. it's like the idea "men are better at literature because there's a lot of male writers" is your last chance hope at being good at writing. byron's more manly than shelley, but shelley writes better, and shelley gets blown out of the water by his wife. does that mean bob the cheeto munching idiot who bought the meme trilogy will write better than sue the random woman? no. it definitely doesn't mean they'll even be anywhere near as good as byron was, even though a lot of byron is terrible, and most of his success was driven by women readers and fan girls.

if you ever feel the need to say "men are better writers than women", you might as well neck yourself because you've basically proven your best hope of being considered anywhere near "good" is to get someone to confuse your dick with writing skills, and you think that idea has potential to work. it's the domain of the mentally deficient arrogant incompetent megalomaniac, and transparently so to anyone with any sense.

I'm a femanon, and I read books because I like the sound of them, they sound interesting or will add some value to my life or the sum of my knowledge. I don't care who the author is, gender, race or sexuality. Artistic endeavours should not be judged on the skin colour or gender of the creator, but by their own merit.

The Tale of Genji is good, if you want something by a woman. I also enjoy Virginia Woolf's writings, although she's not my favourite author.

Someone is on their period.

Women are inferior to men in a multitude of ways, both physically and intellectually. This is simply because nature does not require women to excel. They simply need to spread their legs and bear children.

A few anomalies do not negate the fact that the world is built upon the labor and wisdom of men.

>A few anomalies do not negate the fact that the world is built upon the labor and wisdom of men.
But throughout most of history women were controlled by men and unable to have any space in order to think or excel. They weren't educated and strictly controlled by their male relatives and society because of the physical inferiority. It is impossible to know whether women could have invented those thinks simply because they have not, up until quite recently, been allowed the tools to do so like education and independent wealth and space to oneself.

Good post, exactly the type of answer I was looking for. I just hate when people regurgitate common opinions.

Someone's upset I said it was transparent how much they need other people to group them as their gender to be considered good.

Normally it's feminists who try that tactic, because they too are painfully aware of their own shortcomings and hope gender will erase that, but allow me to tell you, any genuinely good and skilled man views you as lowly as the feminists for trying the same thing they do.

Maybe you are one false flagging, in which case, kudos for playing your best play, you eternal subhuman trapped in your own justifications for your continuing mediocrity, but real men are talking.

I think there's an inherent bias against modern authors that's relevant to this. I'm not adverse to reading female authors but often find that I have no idea what to take a chance on. I can't trust Goodreads or Amazon for recs and whenever I go to browse a bookstore for compulsive purchases always feel as if I'm looking at the same book eight times over and don't buy anything. It's naturally why I, therefore, don't read many modern books by either gender and why I find that I, unfortunately, stick to older, established stuff, which is naturally dominated by male authors - especially literary works and philosophy which are totally my bag, baby. I've always assumed most of us cool white, male 7/10 /litizens/ feel the same way.

Regardless, people like Zadie Smith, Ali Smith and Jennifer Egan are well-liked here.

Fine, then let's take the very recent computer and internet revolution. How many women can you name that had a significant part in it?

A brand new frontier in the history of humanity, and once again it's virtually exclusively men exploring and developing it.

What have women done for the past 50 years that would indicate they're superior to- or at least on equal footing with- men? The pendulum has even been swinging in the other direction lately, with women in first world countries being given major advantages in pretty much every field. When can we expect to start seeing their "full potential"?

You do have the comparison of nuns and monks where plenty of female saints have produced great works, but nonetheless more rare than their male counterparts. Hildegard von Bingen and Teresa of Avila are two notable examples, but, as I've said compete with a lot of men in terms of pure numbers.

>Fine, then let's take the very recent computer and internet revolution. How many women can you name that had a significant part in it?
user, not to deflate your point, but that's an industry that is very heavy in queers and trannies. It's very easy to make an argument that hetero men are no good at it if you accept your form of argument. A faggot saying Turing means he's better at computers than a hetero is the obvious reductio ad absurdum.

>you eternal subhuman trapped in your own justifications for your continuing mediocrity

Not an argument.

Yeah it's a fact.

Plath
Cather
Eliot
Toni Morrison is routinely shat on for beloved, but most agree song of solomon is top tier
The author of Genji

Female authors get plenty of credence here.

>By what measure are romance and YA books trash?

You sound like a typical idiot female reader sweetheart

>By what measure are romance and YA books trash?

Your chaste asshole got roasted, thanks to this lad ( ).

Now hand over your membership card, because you're fired. Just even the most remote consideration of young adult and romance books not being trash discredits your mind as a whole. How can you even recover after that one? Everything you could reply to the first elaborate post was >If it's so self-evident, please explain yourself.
You shouldn't be even allowed to think anymore, or at least not to act unless you learn how to form coherent thoughts.

Let's hope it won't be too much of a challenge, or else there's the ultimate solution to everything.

Else-user here. Why is it trash though?

>Veeky Forums has a fetish for white male philosophers
Are there any philosophers who aren't white or men?

>not read throgh thread
Would be redundant to write it twice, wouldn't it?

should have been /thread

Not a bias, a historical reality. You can't pretend history never happened and retcon the literary canon to suit your own ideological preferences.

Or do you believe that if we erased the names of all authors from our collective consciousness, from bookcovers and introductions, critiques and histories, if we had no idea whether the authors we look back on as literary geniuses had been a woman or a man we would end up with a more balanced gender quota or something? Cause I think it's exactly the other way around. People are putting a lot of effort into giving forgotten female authors some late justice at the moment, whether they actually deserve it or not, and the young female intellectual rising to the top against all odds in a world dominated by old white men sells pretty well as a positive stereotype.

All the Eastern ones.

>not reading exclusively contemporary works by women and people of colour because they present a unique worldview which has been mostly unexplored by the western canon

>1)They are only able to say something if you select an ideological lens when thinking about them, and then you're ultimately saying something about the lens you're using, and not the book itself.

This is the case with every single work of fiction. Name one (1) piece of fiction where this is not the case and I will concede everything.

>2) The books are generally idiotic and have poor prose.

Using synonyms for "bad" doesn't substantiate your point. Do go into some depth with the prose point though - why is YA prose bad, what is the unifying badness that all YA proses shares, and why is it bad?

>3) They exist as a product first and as art second, assuming there's anything artistic that you can find in them. This is an important one.

I genuinely think that this has also been the case with many of the great treasures of literature. Ibsen wrote to sell so he could put food on his table. But I would be interested to hear why this is so terrible.

>4) Why read literature? Because it's enjoyable in a deeper way than just reading books, in the same way a game of chess is more stimulating than a game of rock-paper-scissor or that a well prepared meal is better than a bag of lays.

Deeper how?

Name some female Eastern philosophers then.

You think you're being clever, don't you?

If there are notable female philosophers in europe and few or non in asia and the middle east that just goes to show that we have created a society that allows women to flourish in a way that they can't in the rest of the world.

hahah i love this pasta

>works unrelated to the female condition, however written by women.
These do not exist

I think I'm being cleverer than someone who doesn't know the difference between "and" and "or" statements.

Ibsen is garbage. Using him as an example of great literature goes to show how petit bourgeois your taste is. You're trash. Kill yourself.

youtube.com/watch?v=S9AbuFhT0W4

>LMAO we wuz slavez n shit!
>Muh vagina, muh oppression

nice

...

Poor word choice, small and generic vocabulary, simple sentence structure, first degree meaning only, unaware of the musicality of words (no attention paid to rhythm, sound, word play, etc...)

''But why is lack of X bad, objectively?''

Because the sound must seem an echo to the sense.

''But why?''

Read Pope.

''But why can't you demonstrate it here and now, in simple terms''?

Because we cannot apply mathematical rigor to subjects of which the objective rules we can barely grasp.

Consider Chess for a moment, or how about Go, which is said to have even more possibilities. In any given position, there is a best move possible. However, it's impossible for the human mind to brute force its way to the solution. So you take another path, the path of instincts, intuition and 'often true but not always' general rules; like controlling the center or doubling your opponent's pawns. As a human player, you are more likely to beat your opponent by playing to somewhat uncertain and mystical rules than trying to solve the game.

What are the possibilities of literature and of human thought? Finite, to be sure, but the number is unfathomable. So, like in Chess, or Go, you must follow the path of the unsteady wooden log that nobody seems to fall off of for some reason.

The sound being an echo to the sense is one such rule and for the reasons cited by all of the poets across the ages. When you stop playing by the rules, you're not being clever, you're practicing avoidance coping. Likewise, the crab opening might make you seem clever, but you're unlikely to win.

The issue with literature compared to a board game is that there is no clear goal, no way to win definitely. And so, I can't tell you in the absolute sense why Keats is better than Rupi Kaur by virtue of what he does ; perhaps someone here can, and I'm too dumb, but I can at least tell you why he's above her by virtue of what he is not doing, such as lowering the heaven-aspiring goals of art to that of a commodity, dumbing down the masses with genericness and insulting human sensibility with vulgarity.

On a related note, I think you should read 'The Educated Imagination' by Northrop Frye.

>tfw your kiwi adorno scholar waifu calls you a fucking pleb and sits on your face to punish you for consuming prolefeed

OH SHIT! YOU GOT YOUR ASS HANDED TO YA! HOW CAN YOU STILL LIVE? HOW CAN YOU EVER RECOVER?

Just because you have a "unique worldview" doesn't mean you can write for shit.

P.S everyone thinks they have unique experiences or insights, a tiny minority of them will ever write a good novel.

>works unrelated to the female condition, however written by women.
I have a recommendation. Read The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir (which obviously does not fit your criteria at all). It's a serious rec though, because you seem genuine in your interest. Here's the thing- the reason you think this way (i.e. books written by women are specific to the "female condition") in the first place is because, culturally, the masculine is conflated with the universal whereas the feminine is always specific to itself and defined by its difference from the masculine. This type of thinking can be seen on a linguistic level (e.g. "mankind" as meaning humankind) but the ideological baggage actually goes much deeper. Reading feminist theory is a good way to gain a more objective worldview (as a man). It will enhance your appreciation of women writers. You will be able to approach a text written by a women for what it is rather than expecting it to appeal to you as a male reader.

"A great mind must be androgynous." -Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Has postmodernism gone too far?