Why is it so much easier for a female author to write a male character, than vice versa...

Anecdotes are so much fun. Let me guess: You're a man because you don't understand that your experiences might not be the same as everyone else's...

Because men are simple minded and women are more complex.

>Why is it so much easier for a female author to write a male character, than vice versa?
Lol speak for yourself, hack

There is no "Women" She molds herself to the masculine principle, but ontologically she can never be part of it.

that dude looks so french

Veeky Forums: the posts

he looks like a hispanic jew

because men are driven by instinct and logic. it's easy to understand them. women are driven by emotions, which aren't logical or measureable or predictable. that's why men can't write women but vice versa it's a piece of cake. atleast if you are a woman who has some knowledge about instinct and basic logical thinking.

Unironically tell me one single female author that comes CLOSE to Joyce, Dostoyevsky, Bolano, Faulkner etc. I could go on but it would be futile. There isn't one!

Inb4 "B-but Virginia Woolf is sup-supposed to be good right, right????"

A Sephardic Jew.

the problem is that women know how futile writing is. it's a waste if time, just a tad better than reading. the ones who would be intelligent enough to write book from that calibre are also intelligent enough to know that they can spend their time more wisely.

>men are driven by instinct and logic
Do people actually believe this?

Ok you've made your point clear, you are a female on Veeky Forums here is your attention.

I would love to know what the average woman does that is more important that recording life lessons and knowledge in a form that can be preserved for the future.

Yeah, they read one article online about how men tend to have better logic skills than women and they extrapolate it to all kinds of nonsense.

Yes because there are countless scientific studies backing up this fact. You don't belong here brainlet

You sound like the definition of a cuck, bucko

Not true I said most not all. I think a few female authors are great but most of them do suck

yeah fucking stemlords come on here and think their engineering degrees make them intellectuals who understand human nature and gender relations

Men can write flawed protagonists. Men can write protagonists who are scarred, hateful, liars, ugly, spiteful and ungrateful. Women are unable to write unattractive men. Their male protagonists will not be perfect or rich or handsome, but they will never have a significant flaw that is a serious turn off on the sexual market.

>this post
>this image
why is it so easy to spot womenposting?

Austen you massive pleb

They don't. Harry Potter spends 7 books sitting on his hands like he's some kind of princess in a tower. He has no discernable sexuality. His heroism is totally perfunctory and rarely amounts to more than a paragraph per book.

Then there's the main character in Temeraire. He is a disciplined naval officer with a colourless sex life and in every other aspect is a complete chick who is in love with her pony, which in this case is a dragon.

Anne Rice: Interview with a Vampire. Louis is in every respect a battered wife.
Later in the series, Lestat mostly behaves like a fabulous queen who also is a fantastic lover for women. Sort of makes me wonder about the old reports of eunuchs being popular lovers for women in the Byzantine Empire.

One thing that does interest me is the alienation from female characters that women authors sometimes have. They understand their Hermiones and such very well, of course, but they look at them in a slightly disdainful way, as if the male protag was their newly sprouted penis.

Also, women capture what men say they feel about sex and loneliness and life.

Which is exactly the problem men have, except men pretend to stand by their virtuous lies and pretend to be happy with the results (e.g. I love you because we both take pottery classes and have so much in common, even though you are getting fat,) while women just lie and then act annoyed when you don't do the thing they told you not to do (e.g. I want you to do what I say, but I will be disgusted if you do what I say and am psychologically blind to my own inconsistencies.)

Because they live in a society where 99% of media is male centric

Tumblr was right

Hi womyn. Now don't come back here

Wouldn't that be convenient, even though it doesn't dismiss anything. Also r/incel is that way >>>

>a society
Where are these non-male-centric or non-whatever societies (always negatively defined) that you people are always coyly implying into existence?

I writing a woman protagonist. Wish me good luck

Nowhere, that's the point

You pack a hell of a lot of points into an indefinite article.

It's almost as if you're avoiding openly stating your complaints, and instead passively sulking in the hope that your unstated complaint will eventually be addressed.

How mannish of you. Go eat a steak, you sexist pig.

>reddit spacing

...wat?

You're responding to a post about passive aggression with an unstated complaint about punctuation?

Amazing.

gb2/constructionsite/, Manfred McMannus. I can smell the beer from here.

(you)

Interpretive labor. Pic related is from The Utopia of Rules, an insightful text which fuses anthropology and political thought. Highly recommend the whole book to anyone interested, a pdf is available here: libcom.org/files/David_Graeber-The_Utopia_of_Rules_On_Technology_St.pdf

>inb4 /pol9k/ dismisses this because anthropology is "not a real science" and/or "muh feminazis"

This point is demonstrably, empirically correct, frogposters.

>"never had the impression"
>"obviously"
>"appears to be"
>"a sense that"
>"peasants, for example, are always presented"
>"women everywhere are always expected"
>"apparently"

yes very empirical

There are experiments on this done regularly in anthro departments, it's a pretty hot topic right now.

The essay that excerpt came from was the first on the subject, so it was largely conjecture (interpretive labor wasn't even the central focus), but several other papers in the book expand on the idea and offer experimental evidence — survey results, explorations of historical documents, etc. etc.

dude, i like women and all that, but what you posted is complete garbage

It may be a hot topic in anthropology, but I don't see that it necessarily relates to literature. I certainly don't agree that it's demonstrably or empirically correct as it relates to literature. For that matter, I don't see how any concept at all can be an empirically correct explanation of why it is "easier for a female author to write a male character than vice versa"

I'd submit as an alternative explanation that female writers, or at least well-known female writers, are predominantly those who are concerned with with gender relations and social power structures, and that feminist criticism, especially, focuses on those aspects of those writers' work

I'm not an anthropologist and so don't know how "explorations of historical documents" can be considered evidence or experimental, or what etc. etc. would suggest here