Can a book be misogynist?

The premise of your question is founded on the lazy misuse of language. When people use an adjective like 'misogynist' to describe a book, they aren't refering to the book but to its contents - the ideas of the author, or assuming those contents appeal to its readers.

stop being a lazy reader/writer, and call out laziness when you see it

If you're gonna be a hyperanalytic fuckface, then a person can't be misogynistic either since we're all chemicals dudeee, gtfo the board you pompous moron

hit a woman with a book unprovoked, its now misogynist

either you're trolling, you didn't read your own post/OP's post, or you're an ignorant cunt

the book had no agency in the act of hitting the woman. it is still just a book.

let me walk you through this slowly.
IF it's the case that a book cannot in itself be misogynistic, and only its author and readers can be, THEN the meaning of a text resides with its author and readers only, and not in the text itself. If the antecedent is not the case, then the consequent is not the case.

read wittgenstein, he solves dumb questions like these

Making everything into a gendered issue is pure narcissism, there's no other word for it.

It was a willing proponent in the attack, making it guilty by association.

That's retarded, how the fuck would you consider a text without it's relation to the reader or the author? That question is so useless and inane, that's why I think what OP meant was can a single work by an author be considered misogynistic. I think that it is a given that OP did NOT mean that literal ink on paper can or can not be misogynistic. But what do I know, OP should clarify that.

>It was a willing proponent
I really want to hear a story about a book with a will.

I'm imagining this book is one of those old fabric covers, grimy and yellowed, with a fedora and a cartoon face yellin YEA SHE DESERVED IT, SEE as he is dragged away to book jail aka the library.

>what a dumb question, it took thousands of years of philosophy and one of the most dense and complex philosophical works ever to answer it, an answer which i won't give you btw but i'll smugly namedrop the author

Why would what the author intended the text to say be relevant to what the text actually says?

Why would what the reader thinks it says be relevant to what the text actually says?

>t. Derrida

in a trivial sense, interpretation is necessary for the text to say anything at all. in my opinion, there is no proper "meaning" in the text at all. it's a diffucult question to answer though

This book is not encouraging nor denouncing the act, the book is a proponent simply by the circumstance that he has no will that can interfere

I see your meaning about emus being dinosaurs but I think you're wrong to claim that platypuses are not mammals just because they lay eggs.

>no text can be interpreted
How about this

I am sitting on a chair bought in IKEA.

you are sitting on a chair purchased (likely by yourself) in (not necessarily from) IKEA
>or
you are sitting on a chair in IKEA (that was purchased by someone, presumably IKEA)
>or it's gay slang for
you are dildoing your bum

...

It's the last one, nice

>You're just evading the question
no

Oh good. I thought it was just a lame metaphor about being in a perpetual consumerist mindset even as are really laying down on the virgin sand of a private beach watching the sun filter through the palm trees that are shading you, but that really isn't faggy enough for Veeky Forums.

I hope you all die for seriously responding to this piece of shit thread.

>the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the autist

really makes you think

You might be on the wrong board brainlet

mfw is objectively the worst post in the thread

>tripfag accusing anyone of being the worst poster

What the fuck you gonna do about it pussy?