Books about how women work

>>9094908
socialize with females
read books/blogs by females

http://dearcoquette.com/
^lots of mentally ill women here

>>9094908
The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists: Neil Strauss

>modern
The Manipulated Man - Vilar
>swtg
Thesmophoriazousai; The Women's Government; Lysistrata - Aristophanes
Dialogues of Courtesans - Lucian
>philosophy of being only works in german
Zarathustra - Nietzsche
Parerga and Paralipomena - Schopenhauer

>>9095589
KEK NUMALE
>>9095723
RETARD
>>9095730
More like it, but still to friendly to the inferior and pathetic sex

OP, there's Schopenhauer's 'On Women' and then there's Elliot Rodger's My Twisted World and Weininger's 'Sex and Character'.

Face it. Women are inferior to me

>>9095748
retard yourself

>>9095723
The only thing this book taught me about women was that if you talk to and flirt with them confidently, some of them will sleep with you. Hardly a revelation.

In all seriousness OP, read Tolstoy. He wrote women better than any other male writer.

>>9095750
Take the redpill

>>9094908
Dr Seuss wrote tons of literature detailing how woman's mind works.

>>9095748
>>9095750
To be fair, I was looking mostly for works written by women, but the good, the bad and the ugly are very much welcome.

>>9095589
I was thinking this would really be the best way, reading books about women written by women, but still, I was kind of looking for a bit of a shortcut - if a bit of an inadequate one in the long run - as a starting point.

>socialize with females
Out of the question for me.

>>9094908
Is there a name for the type of dress that she's wearing? It makes my dick hard.

>>9095836
Peter Pan collar dress

>>9095748
>to friendly
On Women is one section of P&P, you fucking pseud. Weininger's shit is kinder to women in that he includes a lower class than women which is Jews of course, because he is one. If you need to be on that scale to feel superior, I'm assuming you're a kike. At least go gay like actual supermales, The Greeks, and read Plato if you want to bring up your micropenis-in-the-current-year issues.

>>9095589
>http://dearcoquette.com/
Holy shit that's a stupid blog.

>>9095763
>take the manchild pill

>>9094908
Arthur Schopenhauer's "On Women".
Immanuel Kant's "Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime".

>>9095748
>>9095762
>>9095763
>>9095774
>>9095810
>>9095872
>>9095880
>>9095917

Schopenhauer & Tolstoy my ass, nancy boys.
Read this,OP:

ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/els/esrcls/displfin.pdf

>>9096020
Well, I'm not really looking about stuff like this; sure, the things written here are true, but what I'm looking for is a book that discusses how women - in the most prominent societies, of course - behave more specifically: mannerisms and such; a book that actually helps me with writing and creating believable women characters. This is just obvious and no help at all, unless you're suggesting that I derive and extrapolate modern women behavior from an array of evolutionary quirks that have been going on for quite a few years now; in which case, come on mang...

I'm not even sure if there's a book like that specifically, but hey, that's why I'm asking.

>>9094908
you can read my diary senpai if you wanna know lol

Just listen to this mate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXzx--YefD8

>>9094908
2 book recs from a femanon

>Gifts From the Sea -Anne Morrow Lindberg
>Tehanu - Ursula K leGuin

>>9097624
>Tehanu
Isn't that a book from a series? Why that one in specific?

>>9097686
Well, it is told from the point of view of a woman, (the other books aren't), and there is a view from "inside her head" so to speak, of men, and children, and power, and many other things: with love, not harsh judgement.

And it's very plain, and mundane, like many women's lives...

Here is a quote that is an example of what I mean:

"Will you be about the house? she asked him, across some distance. Therru's asleep. I want to walk a little.

Yes. Go on, he said, and she went on, pondering the indifference of a man towards the exigencies that ruled a woman: that someone must be not far from a sleeping child, that one's freedom meant another's unfreedom, unless some ever-changing, moving balance were reached, like the balance of a body moving forward, as she did now, on two legs, first one then the other, in the practice of that remarkable art, walking. . . ."

>>9094908
Well a book "written" by a female would help.
Try "The dance of anger: a woman's guide to changing the patterns of intimate relationships" by Lerner, Harriet Goldhor. You will definitely get an inside look at what women endure, why they are the way they are.

File: image.jpg (58KB, 444x648px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 444x648px

>>9094908

>>9097818
>"written"
Why "written"?

They don't! Lol!

>>9094908
Joke: books to understand how woman work
Woke: books to understand how to make woman start working the way they need to in order for you to be able to understand how they work

>>9099801
Divinely Woke: not giving a shit how women work

I don't understand this meme that women are really complex things.

There's just a lot of particulate bullshit because of different underlying mental imperatives.

That and they lie a lot.

>>9094908
Once a day I like to go on 4chan and say something outrageous just for kicks, here is today's post:

Women are just like any other human being, they are different and each have their own likes and dislikes, that also applies to male preferences! Some girls like chads, some like quieter dudes, but all in all humans look for other interesting humans to share their lives with. They want to be part of your interesting life the same way you should want to be part of theirs. They also want someone that cares for their needs just like you want someone to care about you, so that being said, there is no trick to get someone to love you. You can even be good at tricking them into thinking you're cool for the night but not for a life time.

Crazy right? I'm such a troll.

>>9095810
>reading books about women written by women
you would get the twisted image of their rationalising about their irrational behaviour

>>9099907
stop it
you make my peepee hard

File: mytriptoneworleans.jpg (25KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 402x402px

>>9100000
why are all gets on /lit/ wasted

>>9100000 (Checked)

File: 1479190705692.png (411KB, 382x600px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 382x600px

>>9099907
>interesting life

>>9094908
Story of O

>>9094908
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley's_Lover

>>9095872
>>9095748
I like Weininger...

>>9100000

wow

>>9099895
Humans lie a lot.

>>9094908
No because how women work is explained in several sentences.

They are vain, flighty creatures who's only interests will coincide with whatever man or group of men they are trying to attract at any given time (this applies to politics, hobbies, etc). Every time they open their mouths they lie.

The end.

>>9094908
Women don't work.

>>9094908
Women don't exist.

>>9100301
Kys faggot

>>9100598
my penis and me are with you

>>9099895
>>9099907
Replies like these are about the most uninteresting unhelpful thing ever, so please, just shut up next time instead of trying to sound like such a kool grown up mature keed. I'm not trying to get a fucking girlfriend, I'm trying to write believable female characters, and no matter how much you shout "MUH EQUALITY!!!" that won't change the fact that women DO behave differently from men. No, I'm not saying they all behave the same nor am I wishing to imply they are somehow more complex or diverse than men, I'm saying that I want to focus on women and on behavioral patterns associated with them, faggots.

>>9101184
Seriously dude, >>9095730
Vilar's a female so all the female roleplayers in this list don't read.

Don't listen to the redpillers who read Schop and Nietzsche the same way that a SJW would; it's a sign your brain is broken by propaganda if you think Schop and Nietz weren't soft on women, whichever extreme you take.

File: 1428092353038.jpg (171KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x600px

>>9100000
Amazing.

>>9101184
I don't know if I've ever read a believable female character written by a man, but my 2 cents is
>avoid the Madonna/ whore thing
There is more to being a woman than being a perfect saintly mother or a slut.

File: 1459686534065.png (2MB, 1000x967px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x967px

>>9099907

>>9102834
>They don't get it yet.
Shit, am I getting fucking rused right now?

Weininger's Sex and Character is actually a really good book on how women work. Henids are an amazing theory.

All thought comes down to conceptual clarity and the possibility of chaining together discursive and abstract thought. Men are capable of structural abstraction in their thought, so they can easily delimit, and then keep structurally separate, things like principles and the urges or feelings which conflict with them. Men easily seek after what is "real."

Male thought easily passes from having something demonstrated to it, like the principle of free speech for example, to an intuitive understanding of that principle's boundaries. Men can quickly understand and contrast systems of political ideals or ethical maxims. The difficulty for men is in seeing what various maxims and ideals adumbrate, and adjusting the structure of their concepts and reasoning to try to achieve an ideal outcome.

Women's conceptual thinking is murky, temporary, and shot-through with their feelings. They are incapable of permanent ontology. They don't think in abstractions, in perennial principles, and they don't understand what it means for a value or virtue to be "True" or "Real" or "Objective" outside of themselves. Their consciousness even of the world around and outside of them is only differentiated by degree in its subjectivity and objectivity. Everything is an extension of how they feel about it in the moment.

They can never escape the tyranny of the moment, or their feelings, so at any given time all of the principles and values they superficially appear to hold are being compared with how they FEEL about the implications of those principles and values. It's not that they don't care about "real" things, it's that their concepts are too hazy and mushy to make an objective realm of discourse hang together and stay together.

>>9101184
>I'm trying to write believable female characters
well, I'm not a woman, but P.K.Dick always wrote very believable characters IMO. So perhaps you can start with him

>>9094908
man, how the fuck can you analyze such a thing? If you are a man, then you're screwed from the beginning. If you are a woman you still lack the experience on being a man, thus you cannot compare, thus it's pretty hard to analyze. Especially since human psychology is basically lying to oneself in order to decieve the others

>>9094908
Oh, anon, Women don't work.

Wait, did you mean "how do they function"?

Women don't function

>>9103578
/thread

>>9095836
I think the word you're looking for is paedophile.

>>9103578
>men do this too but i'm too fucking deluded to wake the fuck up

File: pepe.jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

>>9100000
checked, try harder next time

File: bait.jpg.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>9103730

>>9103578
i mean to be fair she's probably gonna 'settle down' with an ex-chad who also spent his youth fucking chicks left & right but now wants to pass on the family name and raise a new generation of chads.

>>9094908

Basically the crucial difference is that woman TEND towards being social, self-preserving animals while men TEND towards being logical, gambling animals.

In other words the average grill is going to be concerned with the little things like whether there is enough food in the fridge, that everyone around her is happy, that her friends like her and think she's useful to them, etc.

Meanwhile the average boy will tend to constantly try to make the big picture better like by trying to get better paid, have constant small competitions with their friends, trying out and mastering new things, etc.

Of course you do get the occasional boy that is just like the average grill and the occasional girl that is just like the average boy. Most people are a mix of typically male and female traits, usually having more traits that are typical for their sex than the other, but not always.

You should be able to follow most stereotypes back to the above general distinction. For example reading is something that's typically a lot more common with women. It's an unassuming, calm activity and you sort of just sit there and listen to another person communicating to you for a long time for its own sake. But then you have literature that is more typical of male preferences, like Thomas Pynchon, where there is little heart-to-heart. Instead it's like this huge, intricate puzzle to struggle against and understand.

>>9103741
>>9103741

>>9094908
i want to fuck that rabbit

>>9100000
ERECTION CHECKED

>>9104929
That is clearly not a rabbit.

You are a blind fool.

Can't believe nobody mentioned Schopenhauer's "On Women" yet

>>9095810
Read Margaret Atwood. The Maddadam trilogy will get you some insight. First book is mostly about two men, the second about two women, and the third is from a woman's perspective but also includes the stories of men.

Atwood has great skill in developing consistent fleshed out characters. Also Toby. I love that character so damn much. I dare you not to fall in love with her.

>>9099907
Youre a good guy Anon.
Good guy.

the sexual life of catherine m

>>9103609
>things like principles and the urges or feelings which conflict with them
plenty of men blew their careers because of pussy

>>9105235
connoisseur

fuck off

>>9106305
This. These threads just turn into shit /r9k/ circlejerks.

Like, you have an unironic post saying to read fucking Elliot Rodgers manifesto for an accurate image of how women work. A severely mentally ill man who had huge issues with interpreting social situations accurately and had no real relationships with any women, even of a platonic nature was put down as an actual source.

To OP though, you're not going to get an accurate image of an entire gender from a book. Women aren't clones of another, and generally speaking, the only thing you can guarantee they all have in common is some biological features. If you try to write a whole gender as a certain type of person, it's going to come across as just full of cliches and stereotypes. You'd be better served looking for examples of that particular character style, and seeing how other authors represent that.

You wouldn't go "Hmm, how can I see how men work in stories?", would you? Because there's so many different types of male character that you can't merge them all together into a single group. Just write an interesting character, have the gender be something that exists only as an outward feature for other characters to react to, or for impacting the role they fill in the story in ways. Doesn't matter if it has more "masculine" features or whatever, if it's well written, that'll work fine.

>>9103804
/thread

>>9094908
>women
>work

nah

>>9099907
>some girls like chads
>some like quieter chads

wow really made me think

also
>women
>interesting life

lmao

>>9099871
Singularity woke: Understanding how women work but not giving a shit anyways

>>9101184
>I'm trying to write believable female characters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBz0BTb83H8

>>9106808
>You wouldn't go "Hmm, how can I see how men work in stories?", would you?
So your reasoning for not discussing either is that you don't want to think about either and therefore neither must exist?

There's reams of shit on what it is to be a man, and how they work in stories. The whole idea of hubris revolves around "when a man is not a man" and is arguably how Attica fell to Macedonia. Even female authors get in on this shit, with Shelley writing the modern Prometheus. I bet you shit your pants at the opportunity to point out the doctor is the monster whenever anyone mentions that though in any proximity to your sophomoric brain. You're as bad as the idiot who thinks Rodgers spilling ice tea on women is a good way to write women in general.

>>9108287
No? That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that you wouldn't reduce all male characters to a single archetype or group of chracteristics, and shouldn't do that for female characters either, because it creates one sided and boring characters.

You should look at specific characteristics you want to portray, and how other authors have portrayed those.

Your entire second paragraph is just completely irrelevant to what I'm saying, so I'm not going to bother replying to it. Re-read what I wrote, don't just get irrationally angry over it.

>>9108311
> I'm saying that you wouldn't reduce all male characters to a single archetype or group of chracteristics
PROTIP: A male and female can share the same base type of characteristics, but how they are expressed differs because of sexual dimorphism.

Nobody is implying that all women act as a single, uniform archetype, just that there is a feminine analogue for every male character trait and not recognizing this leads to Mary Sue characters and bad writing.

>>9100066
Yeah, his book didn't sell, so he an heroed himself.

Only bested by he who hung himself from a stack of unselled books.

>>9099348
Can a woman really "write"

Ccccccccome on

>>9100000
peepee, i'm proud of you

>>9108385

this one can >>9108368

File: 1454810811499.png (112KB, 682x639px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 682x639px

>>9094908
You don't need a book.

A trick I learned when I was in prison was to think of it as follows. Women basically work like an inside out penis.. See, D-Cayed from the rolling 60s put it like this.

"a woman actually has nuts. didn't know that did you fruity ass college boy. But see their nuts are pushed up inside them when their bodies are deciding what to do with the nuts gene.

"See every baby ever made has the nuts gene when they are coming up inside the girl. But the boy babies get the nut gene expressed like I do.

"And shit's not the fucking half of it. Girls got the dick gene too. Bet you didn't know that either faggot, hunh? Yeah but their dick gene actualy gets expressed as the clit meat. That little thing of skin you now what I'm saying. Well that shit's nothign but a dick that got did a little different.

"Know I know what yoru dumb ass is thinking--the guts of the cunt is a dick-shaft gene turned inside out. Ha, get this. That shit actually comes from the gene that tells the body to put some tumes coming out of the nut sack. The whole dick gene in the girl is all in the clit no matter how small.

"Fucked up stuff right. Haha, nature is some magic for sure."

D-cayed was a weird guy, but smart. He used to make his cellmate sit naked on the toilet when ever they were in the cel together. Like some sort of dominance thing I guess.

That's him in the pic there.

>>9108311
What you're saying is retarded because people clearly do go "Hmmm, how can I see how men work in stories?" since pretty much the dawn of literature. In fact, people have been going "Hmmm, how can I see how women work in stories?" too for millennia. You just want to assume neither of those things happen because your brain would explode if you had to question your assumptions and actually read something.

Some anon mentioned Aristophanes way at the top. The half of his work which wasn't criticising Socrates or politics is criticism of Euripides not writing women well according to every whore he interviewed. Criticisms of how to write men are equally as basic to canon. You just want to live in a fairy land where neither of those things happen but you can talk about Rodgers in the negative all day, because you're so fucking far below basic you don't even know what basic is. You are literally as bad as the guy who can only discuss Rodgers because you _are_ someone who can only discuss Rodgers.

>My French teacher banged a male student during detention
>English teacher had a lesbian affair with one of her students
>Geography Teacher and English Teacher secretly banging. Said Geography also allowed several students to spank her during a lesson (And I'm jealous, honestly. She was a smoking hot redhead with a killer ass.)
>Different Geography and English Teacher had an affair, Geography Teachers son found out and threw a brick at his car whilst he was driving.

>>9108324
But it doesn't? There's no characteristics unique to women, or to men, and you can't write like there are.

And come on, you're seriously claiming no-one said women are a single archetype? Should I quote posts that do exactly that for you?
>>9108129
>>9103721
>>9103718
>>9103609
>>9100301

>>9108435
>But it doesn't? There's no characteristics unique to women, or to men, and you can't write like there are.
they both love sex, but for different reasons

>>9094908
Women are only concerned with association and appearance. And they love contradictions because it filters out the smart people who make rules and verify actions without valuing her words at all. Her tactic leaves behind only weak-willed drama prone people. You must feign slight weakness around her.

That's all you need to know. Now if you are concerned with accuracy you need to be able to discern who is also concerned with accuracy rather than just who is appearing to be concerned with accuracy. Since women are also emulators of status and can be occasionally masculine they claim to be equal.

In terms of "equality" women demand the results of the effect rather than acquire the skills that produce an effect consistently. They collectively don't want to inspire the unnatural ability in men to control women's affection so they misdirect with vagueness.

>>9108435
The Weininger guy would probably point out to you it's a spectrum that Weininger uses, and women aren't on either end in it. The rest are obvious trolls designed to take in pearl clutchers' replies. You must be a pretty weak troll if you need to quote those to garner a reply. Have a (You)

>>9108439
And what would that be? I'd say both like sex because it feels good.

>>9108443
I'm talking about his quotes, in which he says "they are this", "they are incapable of that".

You can't just dismiss the rest as "obvious trolls" when we have an entire board dedicated to that sort of shit.

>>9108448
Are you really this new? You're either definitely trolling, or, more probably, dumb and new.

If you're dumb and new, I'd suggest going to a board where what other anons do is the subject, rather than literature, since you seem incapable of discussing literature or getting over that anon is not all one person.

I'll wait for you to discuss a book on topic in more depth than you have discussed Elliot Rodgers, but you've pretty much demonstrated that you can't.

>>9108459
What book should I be discussing? I gave my opinion that you can't get an idea of how to write a character if you take inspiration from just a character with the same gender, and how I think /r9k/ posters are retarded.

What else should I have added to that to reach your standards, o wise king of /lit/?

>>9108472
>this much butthurt
Well, you could have discussed Weininger instead of the anon you'd prefer to discuss. You could have discussed the thousands of years of literary theory you decided mustn't exist because you haven't read it. You could have discussed the Greeks. Instead you chose to show off your ignorance and are whining like a baby that someone corrected you and tried to steer you towards books. Probably the best you can do now is walk away and pretend this never happened so your ego doesn't find itself in the awkward position of having to read books and admit your mistakes.

I would advise reading how 4chan works though if you don't want to bump threads with your retarded opinions like a newb and lurking moar. But that's just basic etiquette you'll need on /b/ where you should go with your random and unfounded theories if that really is more important to you as a hobby than reading. All your opinions do involve reading more if you don't want people to point and laugh at your ignorance, even on /b/ though.

>>9108477
>All you opinions
*options

bamp

>>9108477
Why the hell would I talk about those things though? They aren't relevant to the point I was making.

Seriously, what do the Greeks have to do with this?

And how am I meant to be butthurt? Seriously, I'm not actually sure what you're trying to get across here, is this meant to be bait or something? It's a bizarre attempt, if it is.

>>9108514
Your point is retarded and you can't even follow what books have been mentioned in the quote chain.
You really think someone telling you to books are worth more than your hot opinions on /lit/ is them trying to be king of /lit/ when /lit/ has a strong valency with femdom?

You're new as shit and any board would treat someone as ignorant of the basic canon of their hobby like that if they posted their retarded shit without lurking first. You're clearly more interested in making this conversation about anons than about books, so I have no hope for you learning that you're making this thread more popular with every bump you give it. Hell, I'm not even bumping my posts where I don't mention a book ITT out of respect to the people who do want to discuss books. You're fucking cancer and should know you're cancer so maybe you can stop being cancer and fucking read something.

>>9108519
*that books are worth more

>>9108519
It's probably just a dumb girl who hasn't realized her tits don't work unless she posts them. Thank fuck lit was mostly founded by smart girls who read enough to write the sticky or else I'd really have to think about ending myself. Stop giving her responses and she'll go cry somewhere else about /r9k/ founding this place.

>>9108519
What are you even talking about mate?

The OP asked for something, I gave my opinion on it, and you're mad I wasn't talking about the Greeks?

And if you're so desperate to talk about books, what's your opinion on Moby Dick dude? I'm around halfway through it, enjoying it a fair bit so far.

>>9108533
Shit dude, you caught me, was it all the talking about my tits that gave me away?

>>9108533
Fair point, well made. Whichever gender dumb it is probably won't improve and it's time I could be reading instead of spoonfeeding it the FAQ.

Sorry for shitting up your thread OP. The Aristophanes anon is definitely on point for what you're looking for.

>>9108548
I still legitimately have no idea what you're mad about.

I don't believe you can create an interesting character by just taking random stereotypes of femininity and putting them in a character. You can take from certain types of character, but not women as a whole, and even then, you need some real life experience, you can't get everything from books.

Quit chucking a tantrum over shit that doesn't matter.

>>9108548
I forgot to add: OP, if you do go for the Aristophanes anon's recommendations>>9095730, you'll need to read Euripides and Agathon for the first two he lists to get what he's riffing on.

>>9108585
Sorry,
and *about Agathon

Aristotle's Poetics will give you most of what's known of him. On the off chance you can read Greek you might want to brush up on Praxilla too for Thesmophoriazousae.

>>9095730
>philosophy of being only works in german
I assure you, it works in Finnish. Possibly even better because our language is organic.

>>9108653
>muh Linkola
c'mon anon, you know Zapffe is the untranslatable holy grail of the Scandis

>>9108579
Actually, never mind, I get it, you seem to be mad because I referenced someone being retarded for linking Rodgers as a source and didn't mention any other books, but you somehow don't get that my entire point was that you can't get that knowledge purely from books, and can't treat women as a single group, same as you can't men. How should I have referenced books in my post? By just listing books to not take examples from? Should I not post my opinion on the topic because it wasn't directly about specific books?

I missed that you posted a comment earlier on throwing a tantrum about the same shit.

If you honestly do believe that people go "Hmm how do male characters act" though, you might be retarded though dude. Characters act how is appropriate to their character, not their gender. At least, well written ones do.

Don't go around calling people cancer when all you've done in this thread is throw tantrums about my posts, which at least did contribute to the topic at hand.

>>9108663
>Zapffe is the untranslatable holy grail
>Zapffe
>holy grail
kek nice

>>9108585
>>9108591
You don't, really. Yeah, it helps, but Euripides changing costume is still as funny as fuck even if you don't know which of his plays he's imitating.

>>9108677
I don't think you'll get the full effect of "how not to" from just reading Aristophanes though. I guess since OP is looking for "how to" though it doesn't matter.

>>9108668
Not that anon, and it would probably be best as a matter of policy to just ignore any further posts in this chain, but I'll try to explain the problem which is obvious to anyone who's at all familiar with this board.

If all you want to do is to engage in a shitslinging contest on the topic of women, then you have the choice of three boards where you can do that without anyone justifiably complaining. But /lit/ is for the discussion of literature (does this sound familiar?) --so you should make at least some effort to back up your meme opinions with text.

Get it?

>>9099907
Are all girls lesbians?

>>9106808
>"Hmm, how can I see how men work in stories?", would you?
OP here.
Yes, yes in fact I would, except I'm not wanting to write about male characters at the moment and I've had plenty more male friends than female ones. Take your projection and fuck off, please.

>>9106808

fuck off blue pill

>>9094908
They're like children.
Not 100% like children, more like a 14 or 15 year old. Old enough to have thoughts and feelings of their own, but not quite fully developed in terms of personal autonomy.
Of course this is not the rule, and I know lots of women who are just as self-actualized as the male average, and I know lots of men who are just children trapped in a husky meat prison.
But the best way to get women interested in you is to be significant, paternally imposing, and entertaining/funny.
Women don't give a fuck, for he most part, that you've read Parmenides six times or that you're formulating a formalist definition of ownership that's gonna literally kill half the professors in your department. They care that you told a funny joke and made them feel safe. Like a child would.

I don't know about books about women but the most femenine womanly movie I've ever seen is Hysterical Blindness.

>ctrl+f Strindberg
>no results

Come on /lit/

>>9111566

Lol.

August "reeeeeeeeeeeee why won't she acknowledge me" Strindberg?

2/10 thanks for playing.

File: seminaire xx.jpg (314KB, 1175x1875px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1175x1875px

Easy

Trying to understand women through the men's lens is miserable failure.

File: lacan polar bear.jpg (21KB, 236x376px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 236x376px

>>9111624
Except one man, who got it all.

>>9111635
Yeah, whatever.

>>9095903
not an arguement

>>9111604
Quick rundown?

>all the toasted roasties ITT
lmao. you can try and pretend to be so smart and above the shitposting but i can see in every post how fucking butthurt you get. please keep it up.

>>9094908
Red. Pill.

Watch some MGTOW videos by Turd Flinging Monkey.
Present women as the overemotional irrational children with tits that they are. Dont forget hedonism.
Introduce chaos and impredictability, self-contradiction, etc.

>>9095748
does anyone else here have like /fit/ body dysmorphia but with their shitposting? i mean i read this post and am like 'okay brah nothing like lazy shitposts with ur dinner am i rite?' but if i were to post this i would be SO ashamed, idk

we all now the trade - sometimes ur shitpost is on point sometimes not so i should be like w/e but if i were to shitpost on /lit/ i would be really self conscious

>>9113905
Depends on your mood. There's nothing wrong with keeping your shitposts classy, in any event, wherever you are. I don't think I get why people just post worn-out meme-words, like my aim is specifically to make the anon feel bad.

I want them to feel dirtied and to doubt their intelligences and senses of right and wrong, and if I'm doing it correctly I want my posts, as I do this, to appear to come from a place that is not dirty and is not ordered by doubt.

This is the path by which one makes an anon hate themselves, and that's what I always to do.

>>9113152
to be fair, I think we are all ignoring the possibility the one that's butthurt enough to be replying to herself like anon's still listening could just be a dude who's very good at writing stereotypical women.

I mean look at that shit:
>>9108668
>>9108579
>>9108545
You couldn't write a better female stereotype if you tried. The trying to discuss Moby Dick, a novel rife with situational homosexuality between men, in a thread about how women act has to be a tell, because even stereotypical women aren't that dumb. I think we've been rused by a great character writer being meta as fuck.

Either that or goddamn, bitch is dumb on the level that Cathy Ames was smart.

File: 1479710661877.jpg (126KB, 433x419px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 433x419px

the amount of white knights in these kinds of threads is really astonishing, almost surpricing

File: 1480253855108.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

Such a great thread.

>The Sound and the Fury

Seriously, Caddy is a great example of how unpredictable a woman is going to be, and how futile it is to attempt to understand them.

Think of it. This woman becomes a whore, drawing through the mud whatever was left of her family name not giving one fuck. And all of it was just because.

That's how women think. Just because.

>>9095589
>socialize with females
>read books/blogs by females

fucking why

>>9111604
This, but also Augustine.

>>9094908
>heh of course women are completely alien and not basically the same as their male counterparts barring how they were raised different due to societal standings

>>9114356
>not sure if retarded or trolling.fry.jpeg