Why can't you nurture their interest in the arts instead

>>9483641
Because most of them are women, who live in such an extraordinary position of privilege that they deserve to be knocked down a peg or two. Remember. Any negative remark we say to these women are likely the first they have EVER HEARD IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE.

>YA
>art

They aren't really keeping the torch going, they're keeping their youtube channels and personae going.
The way literature has to be kept alive is by being passed from hand to hand, recommended from man to man with no pretext

File: 0091 - gu0XYfy.jpg (10KB, 234x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 234x250px

>>9483641
>Why can't you nurture their interest in the arts instead of destroy them for it?

Burning down the wilderness makes way for ripe pastures

>>9483641
Because a shallow interest in any subject is completely pointless, and if it becomes common, ruins the subject's quality as lowest common denominators flock to it. However, women generally have shallow interests anyway, so the most efficient way to deal with this is to discourage it altogether.

File: IMG_8599.jpg (95KB, 437x704px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 437x704px

>>9483641
because the people here are incapable of appreciating themselves and others

>>9483646
>Because most of them are women, who live in such an extraordinary position of privilege that they deserve to be knocked down a peg or two
It's funny how /r9k/-posters don't realize how similar to SJWs they are. This is exactly what they would say about white straight men.

>>9485180
This, female literacy was a mistake

>>9485231
Except most the talking points of feminism are completely debunked, like the wage gap. Made up. No science.

Whereas MRA has actual statistics behind it

File: wagegapmyth.png (168KB, 293x397px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 293x397px

>>9485753

>>9485753
>Any negative remark we say to these women are likely the first they have EVER HEARD IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE
Yes surely anon is sitting on some statistics on this

File: celine.jpg (8KB, 236x263px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x263px

Their interests in the arts are phocomelic compared to their manifest attraction to the arts as a form of social capital and as a means to self-esteem through the acquisition of social capital.

They also have very little "interest." They have desire. Their interaction with the arts is typically female in that it is emotional. They hate characters who do bad things, love characters that do good things. Sometimes they have more complex reactions, but they are almost always framed in terms like the "guilty pleasure."

Despite this, they hold themselves and each other up as examples of liberated, intellectual women, when they are nothing more but deluded continuations of the thing they themselves are trying not to be with an ironic use of the very practices that create that thing.

Does /lit/ love books as much as booktube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVy7d3ayvUs

>>9485782
You really know nothing do you? I bet you're a fucking chick, typing away with her tits flailing out.

File: 1445702313362.gif (1015KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 200x200px

>>9485852

File: FB_IMG_1494041324766.jpg (4KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 160x160px

>>9485852
Easy lad

>>9485782
Got em

>>9485817
I hate to agree, lately I have noticed a correlation between women's bad reviews of books.
They hate as you said, evil characters, cant stand any world building and are only there for the characters and their emotions, they cant stand multiple povs or omniscient narrators etc.

Not all of them of course but bad women reviews almost always means I will like the book because of its complex subject matter and disdain of popular "rules"

>>9485817
I enjoyed this post but wtf this dumb webshite doesn't have an upvote button.

>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.
Enjoy your'e ban.

>>9486524
>Submitting false or misclassified reports, or otherwise abusing the reporting system may result in a ban. Replying to a thread stating that you've reported or "saged" it, or another post, is also not allowed.
Hasta la vista, faggot.

>>9486552
I didnt submit a report.

>>9485817
wow people actually think this

Why has /lit/ turned into a bunch of autists?

>>9483641

That person's look is really sticking to my head from seeing it while scrolling the first page. I don't recall ever making that face when thinking about a book lol.