Is the patriarchy responsible for men being better writers?

Is being the responsible patriarchy better for men writers?
(Reworded your sentence.)

>>7621644
it's responsible for being better at present

File: image.jpg (121KB, 500x716px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x716px

>>7621650
*menly writers (riters? bookers?)

short answer: no
long answer: sort of

File: clippy.png (124KB, 362x335px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 362x335px

>>7621644
Did you mean: Is Petrarch responsible for Men being letter writers?

>>7621644
Well, since men have had more access to education and have been more socially encouraged to go towards the arts/have any kind of passion, the patriarchy would be the reason there is a higher ratio of male writers and by extent good male writers, yes, but I don't think you could say men were better writers in general, since there's a lot of mediocre writers in history, and to get published as a woman you had to really distinguish yourself. So my answer: it depends how you see it. The patriarchy would have the following effect: There are more good men writers by sheer force of numbers, but the average woman to get published was probably of a higher caliber. This is all in a pre-20th century context, since now its relatively easy to get published regardless of gender.

>>7621644
probably

>>7621644
Is responsible men being better patriarchy for the better being?

The matriarchy is responsible for men being better writers.

The function of women in society is to be coddled and protected because they are a scarce resource. No matter how this manifests itself, the basic outlines are still there. Men have more "freedom" but for almost all of human history, and really still now, this freedom has come at the cost of an infinitesimal chance of having the opportunity to do anything with it, because you're so crushed under obligations and masters. The result of this constant pressure on men is that a few diamonds are lucky enough to emerge. Boom, more male geniuses.

>Is patriarchy responsible for incipient male writers being encouraged more, developing their talents more, and being percieved as better than female writers when they start publishing?
ftfy
And the answer is yes.

>>7621956

>2016
>believing in a "matriarchy"

I guess I missed the part where women make up pretty much every CEO, world leader and rich person.

>>7621644
>implying men are better writers than women
>2016

my sides

File: goingtodie.jpg (32KB, 238x365px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 238x365px

>>7621967
>2061
>not realizing that our species' sole purpose is to procreate, an act that depends on the protection of females at the expense of replaceable males
Why even live

>>7621644
The patriarchy is responsible for civilization and everything good that's ever happened in society.

>>7622022
Keep telling yourself that, fella.

>>7621644
Patriarchy is a precondition for civil society so patriarchy is responsible for the extent of arts and intellectual endeavors of the past several thousand years, by men and women both.

>>7622044
I will because i'm not delusional.

>>7622068

>>7622044

>>7621714
>short answer:
>gives short answer

>long answer:
>gives another short answer

Why do people do this?

>>7622022
>>7622067

Hope neither of you are trying to be writers. You won't get far with that attitude these days. People have considered that argument, found it wrong, and moved on.

File: The-Differences-Between-Men-and-Womens-Brains.jpg (34KB, 460x288px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x288px

This triggers the feminist.

It was the lack of distractions. These are the ages of browsing and meme'ing, not staring into the emotion of our lives and trying to carve anything into blank pieces of wood.

>>7622082

>Even if this were provably true for every individual
>Implying that verbal skills and intuition aren't key components of a writer's arsenal
>If this were true, women would be better writers than men.

>>7622081
>People have considered that argument, found it wrong, and moved on.
Well, if that's what people say, who am I to disagree? Maybe I'll move to one of those safe and prosperous matriarchal societies and rethink my life.

all power relationships are rooted in genetics

>>7622074

That long answer is three times as long as the short answer.

>>7622098

"If women are as good as men, where are the societies where women rule???"

Man, this is such a fresh argument. No-one's thought of this one before. Quick, get it published! You must be at least, like, 17. I'm in awe.

>>7622110
what's the counter argument

File: 1425948410609.png (136KB, 265x281px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 265x281px

>the Patriarchy exists

>>7622117
There is none. It's pure butthurt.

>>7622086
But men are better memers :^)

>>7621650
A classic example of PoMo-ism, indeed!

>>7622110
>as good as
That's your categorization and hang up, not mine. I think women are full people who work with a different set of priorities from most men, and those priorities structure societies, none of which are even close to perfect. Take your shoulder-chip elsewhere.

Probably a result of the fact that men are more likely to be social outcasts with a lot of free time. (successful) Writers at some point had to spend an ungodly amount of their free time alone in order to write enough that we remember them - you can't do that if you're actually part of society (and it's not like we're talking about like ... painters in the guild system of renaissance Europe - writing has never been particularly remunerative and if it ever is, it's mostly a result of writing successfully rather than the initial act). Substantially fewer women fall through the cracks of social networks such that they'd ever get that free time (if women had the same rate of homelessness as men, I bet they'd also have the same rate of artistic achievement.)

>>7622082
I don't wanna play the fucking game...anti feminists never accept truth...and they believe the ones who are against truth are feminists.

There's one study, where they put women playing video games for 10 hours and after that their result on brain imaging where even better than man.

And there another, a really big one, in Israel, where the study was made in a lot of peoples, not only 10 or 20, and the result where so RANDOM, that the conclusion was that the other studies just try to find what they are looking for, instead of putting the whole data on the paper.

I was like you, when I first read about things like Evo Psychology, I say to me Great¡ this makes sense to me, but then I study the actual papers, not only blogs or view points, and where horrible, so bad that the subjects like this have a lot of haters inside academia.

Scientific misconduct has been found in many Evo Psy and social psychology papers, that I hate when a MRA or a anti feminist put that as the whole truth.

And, for the records, I really dont give a shit about feminism.

>>7622142
My horrible english...

>>7622142
Can you summarize the point you're attempting to make?

>>7622147
There exists significant amounts of confirmation bias in women vs men studies.

>>7622147
Yes, the differences between boys and girls, are mostly constructions, the part in the nature vs nurture debate where nature comes is linked also to nurture. Many thing can be changed by the people.

>>7622124
I concur, friend. But not better writers anymore.

>>7622117
The counterargument, really, is "read history".

Even on 4chan, I didn't think people would, without at least 3 cloaks of irony, make the argument that men were just better than women.

If you want a nastier counterargument, I could point out that they objectively do better than men at education and earn more until they hit the glass ceiling in their 30s but then you'll just whine about feminism ruining the education system as if feminism is some kind of global conspiracy.

I guess I couldn't avoid resist the adhom because if you need to contort your worldview to such an extent because you need to feel better than women rather than just exist with them, it really does say a lot about you as a person.

>>7622169
>read history
can you expand

>>7622169
>read history
>nastier counter argument
>really says something about you as a person
If this is the high road, I don't want to look down.

>>7622193

I could explain the history of patriarchy to you, cite sources and shit but the information is well known and freely available online.

It's not going to change your opinion. That's OK. Have fun learning to be a well-adjusted member of society.

>>7622208

>Agrees with the idea that men are objectively better than women
>Faults someone for not making a polite argument
>On 4chan
wew lad

>>7622221
>Agrees with the idea that men are objectively better than women
Except
>>7622131

>>7622226
>I think women are full people
*claps* good for you buddy, real progressive stuff there.

>>7622218
>I could explain the history of patriarchy to you
okay go ahead

>>7621644
Maybe a little. If you give a certain gender greater freedom you grant them more artistic possibility.

are there actually people on this board that think women are the intellectual and creative equals of men? lmao

>>7622294
its about individuals. Gender is a broad category, just like anything else.

Any individual can surpass the limits supposedly limited by whatever category they've been assigned.

I like Tig Notaro.

>>7622303
individuals are still limited by genetics

>>7622294
I believe that, but in this thread I'm a big bad anti-feminist for proposing that organizing principles of societies have nothing to do with the artistic abilities of individuals. Figure that one out.

My own sister is a talent rapidly approaching genius status, so it would be pretty silly for me to say that vaginas cause retardation.

>>7622303
>any individual can surpass the limits supposedly limited by whatever category they've been assigned.
no, many people can't and never will. that's a grade school cliche.

women and men are different: statistically, physiologically, intellectually, genetically, etc.

>>7622325
Sure they're different. But at the very least they can surpass the cliches. Put a conscious being into any extreme condition and they will have a desire for truth, no matter what gender, race, etc. they've been given.

>>7622340
>put a conscious being into any extreme condition and they will have a desire for truth, no matter what gender, race, etc. they've been given.
one could only ever sustain such a view from a severe lack of empathy. you should open yourself up more to really seeing the people around you and understanding them. "conscious" is a category that barely applies to most people.

>>7622352
but you realize that "conscious" can apply to either gender of human being?

>>7622352
>severe lack of empathy
>conscious" is a category that barely applies to most people.

okie doke

>>7622360
it more properly belongs to men by far. it's a characteristically masculine quality. but yeah women can possess it too. ofcourse, its not an on or off thing, there are degrees of consciousness. and its merely one quality among many to be considered when contrasting men and women

>>7622352
This. So many people have lived and died without performing mental functions we consider fundamental that it's mind boggling. The insistence that people of an earlier time or different persuasion are/were just like us, but frustrated by the constraints of an oppressive reality is one of the most anti-human, narcissistic things imaginable.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great thing to be mentally awake and to question things, but the assumption that doing so the way so many people who find their way to this site do is normal and necessary is delusional.

>>7622363
it's not a bad thing or a good thing. its just a thing. its basic psychology. watch the people around you and supplement with the literature of psychological masters (hugo, stendhal, nietzsche, dostoevsky etc). it helps to develop empathy

>>7622367
maybe they are young. i used to think that way to. life experience and reading have both helped me develop a better understanding of all the varieties of people around me. there are so many "types". it's absurd to see everyone as being "essentially the same" like nietzsche would say: if you see everything as similar you suffer from pooor eyesight.

>>7621644
Males experience intense selective pressure while women experience almost none apart from basic survival (immune system etc). Almost all women reproduce, due to the asymmetry of reproduction - while a significant portion of men do not (especially in our earlier days).

A female can be a wealthy genius, it does not affect her ability to reproduce in any meaningful way. A male on the other hand has massive incentives to gain power and understanding of his surroundings to aquire more resources and influence - which immediately equals numerous chances for reproduction.

>>7621644
Historically, definitely. Writing takes time, a lot of time to sit and think of your story and focus on it without interruptions, and it's nearly impossible to write great prose if you're also expected to take care of the kids and the household and someone's disturbing you every 10 minutes and can't attend higher education and it's generally considered a bit dangerous and improper if you think too much.

One historian who had studied artist couples put it quite nicely: when the man wrote, the entire house was shushed, but the woman had to write on the stove-corner when she could.

And also the old attitudes of men being the sex that's the serious writer while women, if they write, write flimsy romance or such, have affected who is encouraged, taken seriously, picked for publication, marketed and so forth. Because of the baggage of history, the image of the grand author tends to still be a man, from the era when only men were taken seriously by default and women had to be exceptionally distinguished.

The attitudes that surround us really do affect a lot of things. But it's different now, and changing all the time as women write more and more and it's found to be better and better, and breaking away from the traditionally "feminine" writing fields like romance.

I'll tell you what the patriarchy IS responsible for, David Foster Wallace.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/08/david-foster-wallace-beloved-author-of-bros.html

When will these literary DUDEBROS stop seeing literature as a realm of chauvinistic "accomplishment" and "competition" and start realising it as somewhere to just sit down and feel some nice feelings?

I think we'll see over the next 50 years if women can really write some classic, canon worthy lit since most precious obstacles have been removed. Somehow I doubt it and My-Prof-Told-Me-This posts like this >>7621760
can finally fuck off for good

>>7622817
*previous not precious

>>7622817
it would be interesting to compare the entirety of western published male and female /lit/ from the year 2000 onwards. Would be interesting to see how the genders are comparing in the ~~~~equality~~~~ era

>men being better writers
are you saying that dykes and homos are more archetypal males than men? i think it's time we admitted how good of a writer you are is related to how much time you spend home alone drunk jacking off and crying about it, and the lesbians win, followed closely by catholics and homosexual men.

>>7622834
Yeah all that amazing lesbian literature out there

>>7622838
>the ghost of compton mackenzie is still jelly and typing on /lit/
go back to hell, you hilarious bastard, you wrote too many books for your talent while you were alive, and only one of your lesbian true stories was good.

>>7621967
they really overrate that ceo stuff

>>7622784
>Implying women from the bourgeoisie had to take care of their kids.
>Implying they didn't have a lot of time to do shit

>>7622022
>civilization
>good

lel

J U M B A J U I C E

U

M

B

A
J

U

I

C

E

>>7623099
You're not very knowledgeable about Bourgeois life are you?

>>7622022
the patriarchy is an essential part of what society was, but patriarchy itself doesn't deserve the credit. Many patriarchies never amounted to much. But it may be an essential ingredient in civilization.

Women who put male names to their work have been judged as women, largely by men, in the literary canon.

>implying any human being has the level of self-awareness to be conscious of all their biases.

>implying anyone in this thread would take a woman's writing as seriously as the exact same work by a man.

top kek

>>7622081
>People have considered that argument,
yes
>found it wrong,
no, they found it toxic to their reputations. the argument is correct.
>and moved on.
to turn academia into a ruthless competition for moral high-ground.

They "moved on" to sacrifice each and every value they pretend to uphold in a race-to-the-bottom where the terminal value is to appear moral and valuable to society.

>>7622095
women tend to be naturally better than men at dissembling verbally, but that is a different thing from constructing an aesthetic story- which i imagine is best done with visual-spatial abilities.

>>7622221
the number of categories in which men are superior than women vastly outnumber the categories in which women are superior to men.

the early 20s career advancement thing is entirely explainable as a doting influence by powerful older males who pay a premium to be around the sexuality of young women.

In education, normal male behavior is demonized and boys are viewed as defective girls because they do not listen and obey like dogs.

Naturally women are superior at submitting for decades to the authority of more-or-less qualified teachers and professors. Women instinctively submit to authority whereas men tend to challenge it. Academia is largely unable to deal with this. This is the fault of academia, not men.

The military, for example, is an entirely masculine organization that is built on masculine behaviour.

>>7624485

OK thanks Breitbart. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with the men's rights narrative.

File: 1453525544449.jpg (74KB, 549x356px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 549x356px

>>7621760
>men have had more access to education and have been more socially encouraged to go towards the arts/have any kind of passion
This is nonsense though, women have been free to write for centuries now.Just look at the history of the novel. I guess that's why you included the vague "socially encouraged" back door.
>and to get published as a woman you had to really distinguish yourself.
And not a single woman has distinguished herself as a Melville or a Yeats has, much less a Shakespeare or a Pushkin.
These are all common platitudes you're regurgitating btw
same with this>>7621965, as if the Tolstoys of the world needed family encouragement to produce their art, kek
>>7622817
I disagree, I think that the world will one day see a Shakespeare-tier female. The "patriarchy" as these people call it actually has held back artistic women, but not in the way that they maintain it has. Probably you need a certain set of experiences and emotions to become a truly great writer. The experiences of the average woman seem to me to be limited by society in a way that prevents her becoming a true artist. Not to mention the fact that many women are too sensible to let themselves feel too much of melancholy or despair or obsession, emotions without which the Western canon would be pretty weak.
At this point it's just a matter of time. A woman has to pop who'll slip through the cracks of the typical female experience. Look at the conformity in their posts on this website and ask if yourself if they could write a masterpiece otherwise.

>>7624506
>with the men's rights narrative.
Do you have anything to contribute, or will you just wave your hand and accuse?

>>7624515

>many women are too sensible to let themselves feel too much of melancholy or despair or obsession, emotions without which the Western canon would be pretty weak.

Elsewhere on 4chan, reddit and everywhere on the internet, a million voices are calling feminists mentally ill, hysterical, obsessed.

>Look at the conformity in their posts on this website and ask if yourself if they could write a masterpiece otherwise.

Because all the men on here are so unique. The one website on which a meme is never posted twice.

>>7624515
>Not to mention the fact that many women are too sensible to let themselves feel too much of melancholy or despair or obsession
Are you seriously fucking stupid enough to think that women don't get sad? Or are you one of those idiots trying to spin the martyr narrative of the American male?

>>7624526

>In education, normal male behavior is demonized and boys are viewed as defective girls because they do not listen and obey like dogs.

I see we're confusing big pharma with a global feminist conspiracy again.

>the early 20s career advancement thing is entirely explainable as a doting influence by powerful older males who pay a premium to be around the sexuality of young women.

>entirely explainable

Glad you solved that one so neatly. I like your point here because you are admitting to the idea of patriarchy, while also suggesting that women only do well in education and early career because of their feminine wiles, which, of course, men are powerless to resist.

This is a kind of dopey, (almost sexist, you might say ehehheh) view of men's behaviour, projecting this idea of the irrational, "blinded by lust" man. It's obviously also super condescending to women who actually *would* like to be judged on their own merit, which, I guess, is kind of the point of this thread.

>>7624540
>Elsewhere on 4chan, reddit and everywhere on the internet, a million voices are calling feminists mentally ill, hysterical, obsessed.
So? That isn't the kind of obsession I mean. The American Puritans were very "obsessed," yet they produced almost no art worth preserving. Moreover, there needs to be a high number of people who've experienced these things for a good writer to be produced, because a dumb clown who feels obsession is still an idiot who is incapable of artistic achievement.
>Because all the men on here are so unique.
Exctly. To sound unoriginal on a website like this is a truly stupendous achievement, yet many women have managed it.

>>7622250

>what is google

If you don't know what the idea is, why are you shitposting in a thread about it?

>>7624577
>Are you seriously fucking stupid enough to think that women don't get sad?
How stupid do you have to be to get that from my post? And you're already trying to explain my personality, kek if you've an axe to grind do so elsewhere

>Entire thread of bitter men making sure everyone knows they're better writers than women

Who hurt you, /lit/? Who hurt you?

>>7624594

>Writes paragraphs making sure people know men are better than women

>Accuses other posters of having an axe to grind

wew lad

>>7624594
>Women are too sensible to let themselves feel too melancholic or despair

This is literally what you said you faggot

>>7624613
>Writes paragraphs making sure people know men are better than women
I literally argued that they're equal.
>>Accuses other posters of having an axe to grind
Why would I accuse someone who has twice misrepresented me of having an axe to grind?
Try not to put a space between your greentext phrases btw, it show people you're fresh from tumblr and undoes the "wew lad do i fit in yet"

>>7624646
Yes, it is what I said.
and this is what your simple mind got out of it
> women don't get sad

>>7624647
>I literally argued that they're equal.
Saying that women aren't emotionally complex to become artists/writers in societies that don't foster enough emotional excerise for them isn't saying they're equal at all, fagmaster.

>>7624657
You're genuinely fucking stupid if you think women never express their emotions. Please get off 4chan and talk to a woman who isn't your mom.

>>7624667
You're really slow, so I'll spell it out. They're potentially equal, and many women are better than men. Would you actually disagree with this?
>emotional excerise
Don't remember saying this, try to contain the desperation

>>7621760

>have been more socially encouraged

Oh man, seriously, this needs to stop. The path to greatness is littered with naysayers. Those who become great ignore them and persevere. If you cannot handle being discouraged or not believed in by your surroundings, you're frail to the point of sickness. Please don't believe that women are like that.

>>7624678
>You're genuinely fucking stupid if you think women never express their emotions.
Didn't say this senpai, how pathetic can you get
>. Please get off 4chan and talk to a woman who isn't your mom.
Funny, I've seen this exacty phrasing from dozens of women on this website, you aren't helping your case

>>7621967

Saying that men as a group have any amount of power on the basis that some of them are CEO's is idiocy akin to saying blacks don't have socioeconmic challenges because Will Smith is rich.

Then again, I'm not even sure what patriarchy signifies. Seems to be used differently by everyone who uses it.

>>7624694
>These mental gymnastics

I'm done here, you don't even understand your own fucking posts anymore

>>7624701
>I'm done here,
thanks for the update ;)

>>7624694
>Women don't allow themselves to feel melancholy or despair

I don't think you understand how women work, autismo.

>>7624698
>Saying that men as a group have any amount of power on the basis that some of them are CEO's is idiocy akin to saying blacks don't have socioeconmic challenges because Will Smith is rich.
I guess it's a bit like that if 95+% of rich actors were different parts of Will Smith

>>7624710
>Women don't allow themselves to feel melancholy or despair
Didn't write this
>I don't think you understand how women work, autismo
I think you need lessons in basic human interaction if you're struggling with simple communication, autismo

>>7624698
>Then again, I'm not even sure what patriarchy signifies. Seems to be used differently by everyone who uses it.
Then look it up on the internet! It isn't hard, you are already on the internet.

>>7624717
>>7624577
Care to try again?

>>7624698

>Saying that men as a group have any amount of power on the basis that some of them are CEO's is idiocy akin to saying blacks don't have socioeconmic challenges because Will Smith is rich.
no it isn't. like, not even a little bit.

>>7624725
>Women don't allow themselves to feel melancholy or despair
Again, where did I say this? You seem to struggle so much with basic English.
>Care to try again?
You need to try grade school again senpai

Well, proportionally I enjoy more male writers. But it is obvious that our tastes are informed by our own backgrounds. Men write like men, male readers identify with male writing. To conflate that with objective quality is in my opinion retarded.

Not to mention the whole issue with women throughout history having far less opportunity for education and you know, actually developing writing skills. So maybe by that measure men are better writers, but clearly that is a function of circumstance rather than biology. Granted, these barriers are being erased, but by their very nature "the classics" take far longer to morph,

Whether the craters in your psyche that result in this sexposting bubbles up from your domineering mother or from the distinct lack of pussy you get, this mongolian claymation enthusiast may never know.

>>7623208
Are you implying bourgeoisie and aristocrat women were somehow busy, and not completely idle and unproductive? (Like most men of the same status)

>>7624743
Your argument is the same as when some 6 year old kid is waving his arms in some other kids face going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

"I didn't say that exact combination of words in that exact order! I didn't say that exact combination of words in this exact order! The fact that you haven't pasted my entire quote word for word means I'm right and you're wrong!"

>You need to try grade school again senpai
Well I'm rubber and you're glue!

leave

>>7624757
>Your argument is the same as when some 6 year old kid is waving his arms in some other kids face going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"
>"I didn't say that exact combination of words in that exact order! I didn't say that exact combination of words in this exact order! The fact that you haven't pasted my entire quote word for word means I'm right and you're wrong!"
No, it isn't. In this case, my quote has an entirely different meaning. I hate to break it to you, but similar sentences do not always mean similar things, should have payed attention in kindergarten tbqh
It's hard enough to defend my own positions, I'm not going to bother with the ones you've made up for me

>>7624772
Oh, and I guess I'll quote you since you raged hard and retyped that post
>>7624770
It's generally a good idea to go do something else for a little while, rather than allow yourself to get so angry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKzdW7kVOIs
There ar some great women writers but the problem is most of them want to be held up by societhy(thus fighting patriarchy) instead of figthing for the individual.

>>7625253

>>>/pol/

>>7625271
stop this srs

>>7622318
>My own sister is a talent rapidly approaching genius status
Yeah okay mate, no bias at all

Idiot. Do you even know what a genius is?

>>7622074
IT'S A MEME YA DIP.

>>7623202
Well... it is.

>>7621956
>. Men have more "freedom" but for almost all of human history, and really still now, this freedom has come at the cost of an infinitesimal chance of having the opportunity to do anything with it, because you're so crushed under obligations and masters.
lel, no. your obligations and masters are created by you only. why do think that most men put women on pedestal ? because they need it and face boredom then suicide if they do not praise women.

>>7626308
>your obligations and masters are created by you only
that's an extremely recent perspective

better Is for writers? patriarchy being responsible men the

>>7626355
the patriarchy for writers? responsible Is being better men

>>7626356
patriarchy writers? the better Is men for responsible being

>>7626362
patriarchy for Is writers? better the responsible men being

>>7626308
obligations because under of chance to masters. having at it, anything now, Men freedom cost has but "freedom" opportunity and human you're do the almost more of this infinitesimal all with have crushed so and an history, of the for still come really

obligations only. if created no. why you ? think do and because then men pedestal are need women. it they your not that do masters by face praise suicide lel, and on boredom put most they women

>>7621716
underappreciated

>>7626368
This is not English.

>>7621644
Patriarchy is a myth.
Men are better writers because of the intelligence curve. Men are more likely to be geniuses. Writing also takes a lot of experience to write about such as politics, war, existential issues most of which women didn't have on a scale as big as men.
Also the idea that women didn't write because they were told not to and wrote less because of it is only partially true as the sample is too big and generalized. For example we can take something which makes sense such as monks. Monks wrote for centuries, both men and women and women can't be said to have been discouraged as writings of saint have always been popular. So you have St Hildegard and St Theresa of Avila as very notable authors, but due to women being more focused on care (by their own choosing) as opposed to writing they are relatively rare compared to the massive amounts of writings by male monks. Men are more likely to be passionate about writing and more likely to be talented and women had to overcome more social taboos at times, but even when they didn't they had a significantly smaller output.

>>7622314
genetics are just little molecular strings that help in protein production
Its not really a hard limit

Men make the lowest and the highest of mankind, when woman make almost always middles class really easily, their genetic is made for stability, while if a positive traith appears in a man, it can be adquired by a really high amount of childs in hes lifetime.

>>7626364
Is being responsible patriarchy? better for the men writers

No. But biology is.

>>7626736
/Quoted for truth.

>>7626529
There's no genetic limit to men being able to grow 100 feet tall?

>>7626768

Nope. Brain tumors can cause you to keep on producing growth hormones.

>>7626768
While >>7626808 is correct, arguably the fact that your body would collapse on itself because it's not genetically designed to be 100 feet tall, is a genetic limit on growing.

>>7626817
All that does is prove how deep the arbitrariness runs. As a fact, it shows how our differences are due to just more arbitrary biology stuff that shouldn't matter in an intelligent, progressive society.

>>7626834
A progressive society cannot be intelligent.

>>7621716
Lol

Very nice