If a book is sexist, does it lower it's value? Are books

Nah

Sexism doesn't exist since men are actually superior.

>>8360090
>If a book is sexist, does it lower it's value?
that depends on how you measure it's value. overall artistic merit, no.
>Are books like Huck Finn, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and The Lord of the Flies, all considered sexist on some scale, weakened in plot or meaning by sexism?
plot, no. I don't see what that would do much with plot.
meaning, no. In Aesop's fables all the characters are animals, we don't struggle to find meaning.
>Can sexism ruin a work?
yes and no, depending on the purpose of that work.
if the purpose is sheer entertainment, like say ASoIaF, and everything was extremely sexist and there were no female protagonists to speak of and all men ran the show, that's a blatant flaw in the work.
If the work has a purpose beyond itself, it is measured as such and the personal sentiments of the characters and even the author takes a back seat to the message and themes

if the message is sexist, that's obviously a different story

>>8360090
Depends on how you define sexist. Is a lack of female characters considered sexist?

>>8360127
>Is a lack of female characters considered sexist?
If the meaning could be altered with their inclusion, then yes.

If the book is sexist How though? Like characters are sexist, the author is sexist, the world is oppressive to women etc. it just adds another interesting layer to the book. Just another perspective to consider and understand, if I disagree with the book's message it only reinforces my own views and still gives me plenty of material to learn from or appreciate.

>>8360176
>If the meaning could be altered with their inclusion, then yes.
I think you mean the opposite of what you just said.
>If they can be included without altering the meaning
that establishes the female characters as simply that, characters that are female, and not narrative devices. otherwise the presumption is that characters are by default, male, and by necessity of the narrative, female.

>this thread
Women are best suited as plot devices.

>>8360221
having just read Mrs. Dalloway and being halfway through Crime and Punishment I have to say your logic is pleb and so are you

>>8360090
Not unless a major theme of the book is directly related, and even then, the work maintains it's historical value.

>>8360090
Was there even a girl in Lord of the Flies?

>>8360249
t. numale

>>8360257
That's why it's perceived as sexist, Golding tries to describe humanities nature with only one sex.

File: 2657954377_2b49e4a799.jpg (63KB, 452x378px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 452x378px

Any honest observation of female behavior is going to irritate their sensitive little vaginas and get labeled "sexist".

Women tend to have an utterly phony self-image. Salome lops off John the Baptist's head than probably giggles like a little bitch later. Gertrude sleeps on incestuous sheets and forgets her dead husband after less than two months. Helen of Troy drags an entire civilization to war over her infidelity and wantonnes. The overriding message being: Women are destructive and evil sinners but somehow they remain completely shameless and oblivious.

Note how whimsical and phony the female self-image is in women-oriented and authored fiction. Garbage like Sex and the City or Broad City. They're horribly flawed in the perception of their actions and consequences, like the closet scene in Hamlet, whenever life holds up a mirror and thrusts this truth in their face they cry out abuse and cover their ears.

>>8360488
This.

Women are simply inferior to men and their rightful place is subordinate to an authoritarian, disciplinary male who decided how she should live - preferably a life devoted to domestic life.

A woman cannot create art; a woman cannot truly be ethical; a woman cannot truly love; a woman cannot truly be loyal.
These are all facts, but will be labelled 'sexist' by liberal brainwashing society because it doesn't fit the narrative of equality.

Women simply aren't as ontologically 'there' as men, they're shallow and lack depth, they're not as self-conscious as man. They aren't properly inscribed into the symbolic text which is why they can only think about Chad cock instead of true good matters and subjects.

Women are an embarrassment. They should stay at home where they belong; they don't deserve power or rights, because they are driven by emotion and will never be anything but inherently evil and destructive qua their inferior natures.

Take
The
Redpilled
Already

Without their festering mackerel-reeking cunts, they would have been killed off by man a long time ago.

I don't think that the lird of the flyes is sexist at all. And for your question, it depends obviously

>If a book is sexist, does it lower it's value?
That depends entirely on each person. Literature doesn't have a fixed value, it's only as valuable as society and culture decides it is. And really, there's no reason their value has to be diminished just because something else valuable exists parallel to it. I find this zero-sum mentality that feminists have to be tiresome and counterproductive. It is entirely possible for literary works to be important and treasured even while they are critiqued by feminist theory. One is not raised up at the expense of the other, there's not a finite amount of value in the world.

If that doesn't satisfy you then you'll just have to decide whether feminism is more important than the literature it critiques. If you insist on clinging to the zero-sum mentality then you'll have to make a zero-sum choice.

>>8360090
>If a book is sexist, does it lower it's value?
Depends on what you value

>>8360090
>If a book is sexist, does it lower it's value?
You're on 4chan.

>Can sexism ruin a work?
Not entirely, unless the book tries to make a point based on a flawed — or even false — premise because of it.

You can still get a lot from a flawed book.

>>8360328
Now that's pushing it.

>>8360488 >>8360511
Are you trolling or just living in your own batshit crazy echo chamber world?

Seriously, you can't reach that kind of conclusion by interacting with people. Not if you're sane. What you posted is even worse than the shit you can see on Tumblr, just at the opposite end of the spectrum.

How is Lord of the Flies sexist? There aren't any girls to begin with

>>8360215
Underrated post

>>8360328
Adding girls to Lord of the Flies would bring a whole theme of underage, and most probably nonconsentual, sex. I think author preferred to avoid that on purpose.

>>8360572
this. Is that why people have accused it as sexist?

Genuinely? I think it matters only when the work genuinely takes it into consideration. For example Catch-22 features the pursuing fury girlfriend as an attempt at feminist allegory but falls flat on its face when you consider the female characters, in comparison to the two dimensional male characters, are one dimensional blips hardly recognizable as people. This is yet another aspect of an already bloated and ill conceived novel, so the fact that the question of women is so poorly thought out is only symptomatic of the larger problems of the novel. So I guess to consider sexism in a novel you need to consider the context of the work, and see what works and what doesn't about matters entirely tangential to the question of sexism. It's not a make or break aspect on its own but considering it can lead you into greater critical questions so it would be nonsense to discount it entirely just because many critics wield the accusation clumsily most of the time.

>>8360090
How is Lord of the flies sexist?

>>8360782
Good post

It really doesn't matter.

Explain how Huck Finn is sexist

>>8361190
He uses the word nigger

>>8360090
>If a book is sexist, does it lower it's value?
not to me, im a white male

to a woman, probably

>>8360090

It depends on if the sexism is diegetic or not

If it is diegetic (e.g. sexist characters in antebellum South, or say Huck calling the nigger a nigger), then of course it will contribute to the work's value as an art piece, in that it helps to portrays truth

If the sexism is not diegetic, it's a tossup.

If the prejudice manifests itself in a way that distorts reality (e.g. unrealistic cartoonish characters - like Uncle Tom, say), then clearly it detracts from the work as a piece of art, in that it does not portray truth.

The work ceases to be an artform, and turns into a historical artifact. Think colonial era literature written by wanderlust-ridden White men who never stepped outside of Massachusetts - laughable as art, now, but extremely valuable for understanding their zeitgeist.

File: 1467839672954.png (296KB, 668x437px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 668x437px

>>8361215
>racial slur
>sexist

File: retardalert.gif (393KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 493x342px

>>8360488
>>8360511
Nice dubs

>>8360511

To make such a blanket statement about all women is telling of your pea-sized intellect

>he actually describes a heterogeneous populations with 1 point statistic

there are women smarter than you, period. if you haven't met them, i'm gonna guess you're indentured-servant-tier White

Newsflash all the clever and smart women in your social class have fucked upward

>>8361228
Don't you know, any white man that is racist is also de facto sexist.

>>8360090
I don't get why it would "lower it's value".

If people think a book is bad simply because of sexist, racist or violent content they can go fuck themselves.

>>8361215
>>8361222
>>8361228
>>8361231
>>8361244
>>8361247

Christ, /pol/ is leaking

> muh reverse racism
> muh can't secure middle class lifestyle as a white male in a first world country
> muh cultural marxism

>>8361256
Why the fuck did you include my post? >>8361247

>>8361271

> muh why do these Jews keep ruining my white male protagonists and mildly sexist media

>>8361275
Where did I say that? In fact, where did I even imply it?

>>8361286

Clearly I read you pessimistically, my bad, I guess.

Basically, your comment could be construed as an echo of the banal "WHY DO THESE FEMINAZIS KEEP CRITICIZING MY WHITE ACTION FIGURES" shit that /pol/ is obsessed about for neurotic reasons

but if you're defending diegetic sexism/prejudice in works of art fine i'm all for it

>>8360090
I believe it increases its value. reality is highly 'sexist' as Science and Reason teach us there are proven differences between the sexes as well as between the races of mankind. True Creative Genius is and has always been the sole prerogative of the White Man. A sexist book can therefore be said to be more true to reality than a SJW or Leftist book.

>>8361293
I am defending a writer being able to use whatever means he wants to write a story, and that no subjects should be "taboo" in that regard.

I mean, what would be the point of a book like Blood Meridian, if it didn't include the violence? The violence is the whole point of the book, as is the racist undertones within it too.

You can judge the merits of the book without having to be butthurt about sexism or racism, or consider it topics that shouldn't be written about other than through the eyes of writers with minority background for example.

>>8361306

Ok White Man are YOU yes you, not people who have once lived and share your genetic haplotype, are you a creative genius?

No?

Then you're pathetic for claiming the achievements of others to prop up the shitstain that is your life

>>8361311

Yeah I agree with you man. Wish more of the censors had this predisposition

>>8361256
>can't secure middle class lifestyle as a white male in a first world country

this is why neoliberalism is doomed. Cosmopolitan Jew/White/AZN elite keeps telling the proles it's all their fault for being racist and not working hard enough, all while they get richer and richer and congratulate themselves on their tolerance expressed through media consumption

>>8360090
Intellectual value, obviously. Artistic one, no.

>>8360328
Not why he wrote it desu

>>8361354
Then why did he write it?

>>8361340

Why should we privilege White folks over the browns? In America, where we're founded on the religion of individualism, of all places

Are you so pathetic you can't play that game except on the easy mode of White crony capitalism?

I agree there should be no punitive actions against them, but removing systemic privileges is a-ok famalam

But anyway go over to /pol/ if you want to keep on whining whiteboi

Everything is sexist unless it completely eliminates sex. i.e. a novel with no description, implication, or relevance in terms of gender or sex or whatever.

>>8361372
lol why are there so many people with cuckold fetishes on this site?

File: Studies-in-Pessimism.jpg (30KB, 320x460px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 320x460px

>>8360090
yes.

>>8361163
>t. someone who's never read Heller.

>>8361377

> muh "alt-right" views means i'm manly
> no no more skilled brown people to compete with me
> no no more women to compete with either
> also make them subservient to men so i can leverage the basic fact of my gender to finally get laid

fuck off

>>8361387
hey no judgment. If you like watching POC skeet on your wife that's between you and her

>>8361400

> muh we need to protect da white wymnzz
> c-can't get cucked by da bbc

>>8361372
the american system = death factory. sure, place a token black guy on top. you can diversify the management, but the death factory remains true to its nature. muh empowered individual is its credo.

>>8360488
>mentions Salome
>doesn't mention Judith
;)

>>8360110
>there were no female protagonists to speak of and all men ran the show, that's a blatant flaw in the work.
No it isn't. It's just a story about men.

>>8361491
damn I don't remember writing that. I was really hungover this morning, I didn't recognize who you were quoting.

anyways,
>It's just a story about men
No it isn't. It's a quasi-historical fantasy series involving multiple generations of families and like a dozen kingdoms. if you manage to write over 8,000 pages of that without incorporating any female interaction in a realistic manner, that's a sexist bias.
Granted I've never read the series, it's just an example.

Name one book where women are useful and not just a cum dumpster/annoying shit/mary sue.

>>8361523
it's yr average Walter Scott via Tolkien soap opera wank if you want 'deep, realistic characters' look somewhere else. The Strong Empowered Woman in the pop culture sense is merely just another cliche which bears little relation to reality.

>>8361528

atlas shrugged

>>8360257
i thought the pig they ass raped with the spear represented womankind

>>8361528
East of Eden

>>8361523
>if you manage to write over 8,000 pages of that without incorporating any female interaction in a realistic manner, that's a sexist bias.

Says you.

This is exactly as retarded as implicit racial bias psychology tests. Even if implicit racial bias exists, the test itself makes people think they are justified in calling and judging someone a racist.

The exact same thing as you are doing, by judging an author and book as sexist, simply because he "left out" something that you think "should" be there, you feel it justified in the same way.

It's really retarded, and it really shows how people are fanatically looking for a reason to hate someone.

File: 1449323056530.jpg (53KB, 507x522px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 507x522px

>>8361545
>>8361559

>>8361528
if you actually have to ask this, i doubt you've read many books.

Literally any Hesse book proves you wrong.

File: 1433143850814.jpg (116KB, 475x472px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 475x472px

>>8361566

File: CVP63lhVAAAm__b.jpg (49KB, 600x665px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x665px

>>8360090
This can't be a serious question

>hurr durr this is a good book but it has sexist/racist moments which is problematic and cant be overlooked

>>8360488
Eve is the prime example.

>>8360090

Nope.

Additionally, ascribing modern notions to books in the past in silly and counter-productive.

Additionally, the term 'sexism' itself has different meanings depending on the discipline a person is from and the time period they are looking at. Sexism as an idea has no uniform meaning, making it just a little bit above meaningless.

>>8361387

> no no more skilled brown people to compete with me

Nice fallacy kiddo. Try understanding the argument you are against.

https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupation/understanding-h-1b-requirements

With great authors who portray women it becomes less about muh sexism and muh not understanding the female and more how does the author personally feel about the role of women in society and their general behavior. Guy de Maupassant is a good example of this. He often saw women as feeble evil creatures who are often times manipulative but he loved them for their sex and what they could fulfill for him and often times its displayed in his works.

If you can't get over the fact that a particular author was potentially suffering in life in some way or another or saw women as disposable or weak and feeble when throughout society they were not seen as intelligent but mothers and nuisances in society for men then stick to YA fiction. We read authors for their perspective not for society's view on life.

>>8361598

If they're willing to work for lower wages, so should you.

If those wages aren't enough for you, then tough shit. Get better, or live with it.

> b-but that's unfair

Are you some kind of crony capitalist aka socialist aka manbaby?

>>8361561
>The exact same thing as you are doing, by judging an author and book as sexist, simply because he "left out" something that you think "should" be there, you feel it justified in the same way.
That's why I said "sexist bias" and not "sexist" in the sense of a personal sentiment of the author. By creating a world with a purposefully high level of verisimilitude at such a large scale, if grrm hypothetically left out females completely from his series, the work would be fundamentally flawed. It's just bad writing, reason being is a sexist bias, but that says nothing of the author and isnt a sexist affront towards females, just the label by which one would categorize that artistic shortcoming. But it is my opinion that if you write an 8,000 page sausage fest of 100+ characters you've got some explaining to do, it has more to do with the scale of the work.

For instance, 2001 A Space Odyssey is one of my favorite movies. Cast is all middle aged white guys. In fact you could scramble up the actors and it would change nothing of thr story. That's not racial bias. There are only a few characters and its a short work.

>>8360090
No.

>>8361610

It is clear that you did not read / understand that link and that you are creating a strawman argument.

The problem is not the low wages, the problem is that H1b visas (and similar) create a serf caste of foreign workers who will never adopt the host culture, cause social problems which will then cause economic problems.

>>8361523
IF YOU MANAGE TO WRITE OVER 8000 PAGES WITHOUT INCORPORATING ANY REALISTIC 21ST CENTURY AFRICAN INTERACTION IN THIS MEDIEVAL FANTASY SERIES, THAN YOU CLEARLY HATE BLACK PEOPLE!

IF YOUR SPACE OPERA SERIES DOES NOT INCLUDE VARIOUS REFERENCES TO THE RAPE AND MURDER OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS, THEN YOU ARE JUST BIASED AGAINST THEM HOLY SHIT ITS 2216

>>8361742
please refrain from posting until after puberty

>>8361752
Talk to the babby he's replying to

>>8361742
imagine caring this much about bullshit

>>8361752
I'm 28.
>>8361758
I don't care at all, it's just ridiculous and borderline historical revisionism.

>>8361755
I am the baby he's replying to. Talk to me.

>>8361760
>Im 28
yeesh. I was going to ignore you but goddamn. I'll just dissect your strawman. You probably know it's a strawman but Jesus Christ.

>IF YOU MANAGE TO WRITE OVER 8000 PAGES WITHOUT INCORPORATING ANY REALISTIC 21ST CENTURY AFRICAN INTERACTION IN THIS MEDIEVAL FANTASY SERIES,
first, you're just blowing past the crux of our original argument of accurate representation of sexes. Race and sex are two completely different things. You say "people" you are, by default, referring to both males and females. You cant have one without the other, especially if your story incorporates royal families (still referring to a hypothetical female-less ASoIaF) and multiple generations of multiple kingdoms. If you do, you're going to get called out on it, because something at that scale becomes purposeful ignorance. No author who has ever been taken seriously in their portrayal of humanity has made an oversight of that magnitude. Race never came into the equation.

>THAN YOU CLEARLY HATE BLACK PEOPLE!
You either didn't read my post or have terrible reading comprehension. I specifically said that sexiat bias in a work does not make the author sexist.

>IF YOUR SPACE OPERA SERIES DOES NOT INCLUDE VARIOUS REFERENCES TO THE RAPE AND MURDER OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS, THEN YOU ARE JUST BIASED AGAINST THEM HOLY SHIT ITS 2216
at this point your dick is out of your pants and I cant stop you from waving it around looking stupid.

>it's just ridiculous and borderline historical revisionism
In what way is an accurate portrayal "historical revisionism"?
How does that line up with, say, anti-western, the genre that purposefully portrays a more accurate representation of the west vs it's "historically revised" counterpart that is just white guys with six-shooters

if you're actually 28 you need to get your shit together man.

>>8361382
>muh 450 pages of the same abbott and costello bit repeated ad nauseum with added edge each time

>>8361819
>if you dont hold my opinions then you need to get your shit together man its 2016

>>8361880
If you're the anon they are replying to then you are not fooling anyone

They went through and explained why you should adopt their opinion. Stop acting like this

>>8361649
Yeah, but see that's just semantics.

You are just using the word "sexist bias" to sound more politically correct, but in reality you want to judge someone for not producing works of art conforming to your worldview.

>>8360221
>Oedipa Maas

>>8360090
The Lord of the Flies isn't sexist. It doesn't have any female characters because the main characters are students at a British private school, and British private schools are gender-segregated.

The pig scene could easily be read as another sign of their loss of "civilization", with rape being a "savage" act. This point in the novel appears to mark the point of no return in regards to the boys' descent, so it could be argued that the book portrays rape as not only a savage act, but THE savage act.

>>8360090
No. The value of the book is on it's plot/prose/characters/story/message not in the way the authors depicts any type of social group.

>>8362847
What if the book's plot, characters, and/or message revolves around the supposed inferiority of other racial groups or of women?

>>8362847
>characters/story/message
These things are very hard to combine with ignorant attitudes from the author. Say we have a sexist...

>characters
How is he going to write believable and interesting characters of the opposite gender? Even if he/she somehow manages to exclude one gender from the story, given his/her shitty understanding of people of any gender, they are unlikely to be believable so at best they will be interesting.

>story
How is he/she supposed to tell a story worth reading without believable characters? Again the writer needs to rely on his/her ability to make in interesting, making the job harder than it needs to be. Humor is all that's left at this point.

>message
For a message to have impact, the story telling the message is supposed to be believable, due the points mentioned already, it won't be the case, so again, at best the message can be something unrelated to human interactions.

>>8361372

>wages of native workers are too high
>increase labour supply via immigration
>wages go down
>if you complain you're a racist xD

I don't like shit-flavoured coffee but apparently every other worker at Tim Hortons is some sort of migrant who can be paid less than a Canadian.

>>8360090
a book cannot be sexist. it is an object. readers might derive a sexist message from it, but not at the books fault, just as writters might writte sexist messages into them, again, not at the books fault.

it takes a sexist to take a sexist message from a book, and claim the book is lowerin value, or unworthy because of it. or even worse, to criticize a readers work simply because the reader shared diferent points of view.

Lovecraft was incredibly racist. yet his works stand tall in the horror fiction genre. the fact that the man was racist doesn't influence the volidity of his works, only his works do that.

>>8363268
>A post cannot be retarded, only the poster can be

>>8363004
Why not fight to ensure that immigrants get equal pay like natives then? Thus ensuring wages stay as they are and people are chosen based on how well they get the job done. I never understood this "crabs in a bucket" mentality.

>>8360624
because there are no girls i guess

>>8361312
Not that anon, but it was obviously a joke.

>>8360488
>including women is sexist
>not including women is sexist
fuckbot society when

>>8360090
I don't see why it would.

>>8361354
>he thinks authorial intent matters

>>8361566
Siddartha. She literally just fucks him and raises a brat of a son.

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (21KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 474x528px

>>8360090

>If a book is sexist, does it lower it's value?

No. A book's value actually increases with sexism, and anything else that offends your pathetic sensibilities.

>>8360511
t. mr. tansley

>>8360488
>>8360511
gotta respect dubs of truth though

>>8361256
t. retard

>>8360488
>Helen of Troy drags an entire civilization to war
But she was enchanted.

>>8362974
Wait hold up. Define sexism then. Are we talking about within the context of the society at the time of creation or just anything that can be construed as sexism period?

I can read Heidegger the nazi.
I can read Sade the rapist.
I can read Russian authors who'd probably pass for anti-semites.
And so on.

No, I don't really care. You could write work so obnoxiously and obviously sexist that it'd bother me, but that requires more than just being sexist. It takes a focus on the sexism.
"Classic" works also get the whole historical context to soften he blow of any non-modern views.
Might alienate me a bit if a modern author was obviously sexist and in a bad, obnoxious, non-sympathetic, non-self-critical way. Might not harm the work if it focuses on something else.

File: 1466256757566.gif (498KB, 203x158px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 203x158px

>>8360488
>>8360511

They literally have no answer to these truth bombs so they start slandering and shaming.

>>8364121

They're not immigrants my dude. They're Temporary Foreign Workers. They'll make some money and then go home. It's the third world poorfag version of doing a semester abroad.

The simplest thing would be to ban the practice altogether because that way wages for natives would actually go up due to necessity, and campaigning against migrant labour is easier than campaigning for legislated higher wages. It's a win win.

>>8365174
You weren't talking about migrant workers though. You were talking about immigrants in general.
Why not just campaign for all people to be paid the same. If that's the case, people will not get the end on being hired just because they can be paid less. It would be a win-win-win because foreigners won't be swindled while they have opportunity, people will be hired on merit (how much better at getting shit done), and citizens won't have to worry about lowered wages and less jobs. Of course, knowing people like you, you're probably too afraid to compete on the basis of skills with foreigners, so you'd take the easy way out and just throw them under the bus.

>>8360511
who th e hell said that ALL women talk about chad's all day?
Most men do the same anyway: they think about nothing else but the most expedient way to get laid. Preferably by a hot chick which unbeknownst to most of them, is decided by what society has socialized them to believing is sexually attractive through media. This post is literally laughable in its shallowness. It's like you don't meet women or even have friends past the ones you stalk on fb.

>>8361942
>the "worldview" that women exist

>>8361256
reddit: the post

>>8361136
It's not, OP is retarded.

>>8365362
I just said people see it as sexist, not that I do.

>>8364928
Any kind of prejuce based on gender alone presented in positive/unreflected light.

I don't think the context withhin society at the time should matter too much, Hugo had no sexism even thought his view of genderroles was obviously not as advanced as it is now. There is no excuse for an author who lived afterwards to fail at something so simple, specially given how authors are supposed to be more visionare-y than most.

>>8361523
>>8361561
It is not sexist to ignore the role of women in a fantasy epic which includes them. It's just stupid and wasteful, why even include them in the story at all if they aren't to mean anything.

What's sexist is to say that the reason why they weren't included is because women are just a collection of sterotypes who can't make art or reason and are all liars. That type of talk belongs on R9K. There are plenty of books that illustrate just how human women are. Spergs.

>>8361742
This is fallacious. Nobody ever claimed that works need to include something completely unrelated. You are projecting your redpills to the world.

Calm down and go plan your upcoming school shooting god damn.

>>8361742
lol

>>8360511

I think you are the embarresment here

>this entire post wasnt 'driven by emotion'

>>8360090
"Hitler had some good ideas" is more than a strawmeme. No set of ideas should be dismissed wholesale based on the character of the person who has espoused them or even their overall context. That is just low minded

>>8366074
Given that tons of non crazy people did support animal welfare too, dis-accociating them from Hitler and nazis sounds simply more practical than disselect Hitlers rambing in hope to find a sane thought or two.

>>8366182
if people weren't so petty and stupid they wouldn't even think in such terms to begin with. But I was only using Hitler as the ultimate example of the syndrome I was speaking against. The point being that the whole basis of this thread is idiotic.

>>8366074
You're technically right, but there are basically only 2 reasons to actually ever say that "Hitler had some good ideas":
1. You're a closet nazi or "light fascist".
2. You just want to provoke people for the hell of it.

Neither is a particularly good thing, so stigmatizing people who want to "white-knight" Hitler is a pretty good thing to do.

However your point is pretty good, its never very wise to completely disregard people based on their overall political (etc) opinions. But there must be some picking-n-choosing, thanks to limited time and resources for going through everyone.

File: Schopenhauer on women.png (218KB, 1653x887px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1653x887px

>>8360090
That depends on what you consider sexist, I guess

>>8367027
>woman is not meant to undergo great labor

http://imgur.com/a/kQzK9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

>>8367071
'not meant to' doesn't mean they can't, just that they shouldn't as they're not as good at it

>>8365224
>Why not just campaign for all people to be paid the same
Because people should be paid based on the quality of their work or by what they choose to work for. This system already exists.

>>8366973
>hurr durr politics sure is fun

It was a manner of speaking. Are you really too dumb to understand that? I don't even know what the hell Hitler's ideas were I just know they ought to be dismissed on a case by case basis as should the ideas of any other thinker.

>>8366074
>>8366973

It's a connotation thing though.

Saying "Hitler had some great ideas" and then saying "Ha! I meant animal welfare" is nothing but bait and switch.

Hitler is known for the Nazi ideology, just like how animal welfare activists are known for animal welfare ideology.

A less bait and switchy post would be "PETA has some great ideas".

File: Neech.gif (1MB, 1274x955px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1274x955px

Sexism is a natural expression of the will-to-power. This is why men give misogynistic and women misandristic rants. Rationally, of course, misogyny and misandry are both entirely retarded, although it is clear there are differences between women and men and one can have more pronounced flaws that the other does not have in general, and vice versa. For instance, the worst of men tend to be more retardedly pigheaded and violent, whereas the worst of women tend to be more extraordinarily insidiously and subtly cruel, and of course bitchy. Sexism itself can't ruin a work if the work is good. If {like Updike) you try to get into the head of a woman character and just end up being retarded instead, that's not sexism ruining the work (or at least ruining that part of the work), it's the inability to have empathy with the character.

Philip K. Dick, on the other hand, consistently portrays women as evil, deranged, simplistic, debauched, etc..., but his works are still very good and the "sexism" doesn't detract from the work. That's because his characterizations are actually pretty realistic and true to life, far better than Updike's characterizations of women.

>>8365328
No, I mean:
>the "worldview that everyone must write a book with profound female characters or it's sexist".

>>8368286
Not at all, if a writer can't write realistic female characters, he just sucks at writing and it's given that his male characters will suck too.

Sexist would be if he had no female characters in a setting that makes this very unlikely or having all of them based on stereotypes. (unless he does same with men too, then it's a parody or some shit)