>feminist interpretation These niggas for real? How the fuck

>>9697403
That's not what feminist literary theory is.

>>9697403
That's not how interpretation works.

>>9697403
>How the fuck can you think something written by a 19th century German philosopher was in any way feminist?
what did you think Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were responding to with their rants on feminism?
also this >>9697418

>a feminist or Marxist reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet would reveal something about feminism or Marxism, [Bloom] says, but likely nothing about Hamlet itself.

>>9697418
>>9697430
I worded that badly, as in how can you think what they thought of had any relation to feminism? I think it's supposed to be "a lens with which you see the world" or something but when you all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

>>9697450
>what they thought of had any relation to feminism?
>what they thought of had any relation
>what they thought

One basic principle that I think you're missing is that your feminist critic isn't interested in what the author of the text thought. She's interested in the text and the role it may play in certain discourses and how it contributes to notions of oppression, for example. It's an idea that's becoming increasingly passé, but many critics will still insist that the author's intention has no bearing upon interpretation.

So, I will politely reiterate what anon has stated before me:

>That's not how interpretation works.

>>9697469
>interested in the text and the role it may play in certain discourses and how it contributes to notions of oppression

I thought that was the Marxists' job? Wait..

>>9697482
And feminist theory is a derivation of Marxist literary criticism. Spot on.

>>9697487
What's the difference?

>>9697403
'Feminist' literary theory just means looking at how the gender roles in the novel affect its structure, not necessarily saying things about 'free the nipple'. For example, comparing the female-dominated world of Crime and Punishment with the male-dominated world of The Brothers Karamazov

>>9697490
The nature and identity of the oppressor and the oppressed, to begin with. The marxist sees history as the product of class oppression and the feminist as the product of gender oppression. Consequently, they each approach the text differently and are attentive to different details. There are plenty of local differences, but the basic premises that undergird them are similar.

To which Jordan H. Christ can only throw his hands up in dismay and cry out:
>Damned neo-marxists!

>>9697508
That's certainly part of it, but there is an ideology beneath that motivates such readings.

To which Jesus H. Zizek can only throw his hands up in dismay and cry out:
>It's pure ideology, my god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9X_gxD9YYg

Feminist literary theory is actually quite interesting. I am a very traditional type of person but feminist theory always opens up works to different interpretations than I would usually go to. Madwoman in the Attic is a great example. I don't always agree but it still helps me think in a different way.

>>9697440
nice

>>9697403

>he doesn't realize that criticism is a creative act

absolutely plebian

>>9697526
>feminist literary theory is actually quite interesting

Yeah it's quite amazing

>hurr durr every book is about muh amazing powerful vagoo goo that every man dreams about 24/7 and oh god i'm such a sexy empowered womyn whom kant wanted so bad but he CAN'T HAVE ME TRALLALALALALA I'M SO SEXY OH GOD SEXXXX

File: JPstop.png (310KB, 474x438px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 474x438px

>>9697514
That's literally filtering all information contrary to the ideology out and proclaiming it was right all along. How can you find anything of worth here? Oh wait, everything is worthless it's all power.

>>9697533
You don't really know what you're talking about, right? I mean, you've never actually engaged with feminist criticism, have you? You've been triggered by youtube videos and angsty virgins in class, themselves knowing nothing about feminist literary criticism. Stop embarrassing yourself, kid. The grownups are trying to talk to each other.

>>9697533
>this is what passes for intelligent discussion on /lit/ these days

Sad!

>>9697550

What's really sad is that I saw this reply coming before I even hit post

>I don't like your characterization, therefore you've never read feminist criticism.

Okie dokie, pal.

>>9697544
That is the point at which literary criticism of almost any sort becomes something of a mug's game. Really great criticism rises above this and is productive and creative and increases our knowledge of the text and its reception. Most is just a shallow reinscribing of the assumptions that were brought to the text. But, as in almost any discipline, most of what's produced by its practitioners will be average and only the cream will float.

The fact that there's bad criticism doesn't negate the purpose or utility of criticism, though.

>>9697559
Your "characterization" bore no relation to feminist criticism, though.

>>9697567

You're not fooling anyone lol

>>9697559
>What's really sad is that I saw this reply coming before I even hit post
And yet hit post anyway. That is sad.

>>9697572

>Saw that one coming too

Not as sad as you.
I'd rather be the forseer than the forseen.
This is my world, you're just living in it man.

>>9697577
>This is my world, you're just living in it man.
Holy shit. You're right.

>>9697577
>>9697571
>this is the cancer that /lit/ allows on the board

Sad!

>>9697550
You sound like someone who has never been near a women. At least you're well versed in feminist theory, right?

Now, regardless of how interesting or useful it is is aside from the point. The entire field is completely useless and a waste of money/academic time.

>>9697560
I'm not just talking about criticism by itself. I mean how can these people proudly state they see everything as oppression? There is clearly more to it than that so why the tunnel vision?

>>9697597
>these people proudly state they see everything as oppression
Who does this? You must be kidding.

>>9697597
In my experience, some are zealously committed to the ideology (and are as deluded as every other ideological zealot) and the rest do it because it's a living. If you can publish, teach, and get tenure, then you'll keep doing what works. And fem theory is part of what works.

It's such an odd thing, that in a discipline that trumpets the complexity of the texts being studied and the difficulty of unwinding their mysteries, so many people can be so reductive and narrow in their approach to almost any text.

>>9697597
>why the tunnel vision
Everything they do is to reinforce their beliefs. Why do you think they interpret things strictly through the lens of their specific belief and not some other way?
They seek only to confirm their biases.

>>9697638
Commitment to a particular school of lit crit isn't a bad thing, and the methods can become something of a dry habit. Something interesting can happen, though, when critics of different schools engage each other. In the agonistic relationship between the formalists and the feminists, something creative or productive can happen.

>>9697638
>They seek only to confirm their biases.
So long as it gets them book deals and tenure.

>>9697612
Don't play stupid.

>>9697626
>In my experience, some are zealously committed to the ideology (and are as deluded as every other ideological zealot) and the rest do it because it's a living. If you can publish, teach, and get tenure, then you'll keep doing what works. And fem theory is part of what works.

This makes it seem like the entire thing is one big racket. Half the people in it are retarded and the other half are dishonest.

>>9697638
There are just so many contradictions it's hard to even find a place to start picking it apart. Don't they pride themselves in being rational and critical? Why do they straight up declare they see the world a certain way and that's that?

>>9697650
>Commitment to a particular school of lit crit isn't a bad thing, and the methods can become something of a dry habit.
Certainly not, but the trouble is that these things do indeed become habit and bias.
>Something interesting can happen, though, when critics of different schools engage each other. [...]
I absolutely agree with you, but that's part of the trouble with feminist modes of thought. There is little room for discourse, unless one decides to separate oneself from the general ideology and do as you said, engage in discourse with others of differing ideas. Trouble being that this is not encouraged or taught in feminism or similarly "hardline" ideologies.
But I do agree with y9ou, there could be valuable discourse, but that would necessitate some abandonment of idealism.
>>9697654
This is also a problem. The acceptance of ideas due to popularity. I would wager a strong majority of the so called "feminists" out there are only conforming for the publicity and acclaim it brings. Sad, but there you are.
>>9697670
>There are just so many contradictions it's hard to even find a place to start picking it apart. Don't they pride themselves in being rational and critical? Why do they straight up declare they see the world a certain way and that's that?
A great many people are this way, not just feminists, but they are so in particular. Its a core of the ideology.
They like to pretend they believe they are rational and critical, but in reality they only believe they are right. It has little to do with actual process or rationale or criticism. This is common elsewhere. They stumble into a belief that suited their worldview at the time and have only continued to reinforce themselves in it, never actually challenging it. I would say this is more a human problem than anything else.
Which is why they are content to simply wallow in a stationary state of mind. They are confident in their individuality to some degree, and any challenge to the idea to which they conform is a challenge to that individuality and their power as intelligent individuals.
Its ultimately just human folly combined with a particularly volatile and errant system of belief.

Can't believe the state of /lit/ now. Not a single post in this thread has anything to do with feminist criticism and it's clear that no one posting in this thread has ever read any feminist criticism.

This thread is an incredibly clear example that no one on /lit/ actually reads.

>>9697440
top kek

The death of the author was a mistake.

>>9697403
You know that there were people who didn't think women were subhuman all throughout history, right?

>>9697514
How did this become so dominant? Anyone can do this. . . . You just have to read a brochure with a few Feminist theory guidelines and you are good to go.

File: 66575_1529745657204_1641608694_1222608_5538714_n.jpg (49KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 604x453px

>>9697830
Subhuman = Differentiation of male and female.

File: 1478673667433.gif (999KB, 345x194px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 345x194px

>>9697446
>tampons, pads, and ironclads

>>9697797
>You just don't understand, so please stop talking, okay, sweetie? Feminism is so much more!

>>9697843
>it's lawful to beat your wife if she talks back to you
>not categorizing females as "below" men

File: 1295459942984.jpg (51KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x450px

>>9697446
>antebellum calcutta

>>9697450
>but when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Your little alt-right youtubers just want your views. KYS.

>>9697830
I wouldn't bother trying to get OP to see the errors of his way.

>>9697593
>The entire field is completely useless and a waste of money/academic time.
EDGY

the great thing about these threads is that everyone gives examples of what they mean

File: 1495985764491.gif (993KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 245x245px

>>9697797
Feminism is fucking shit on the whole.
Feminists are generally delusional, and when they are not, they deny parts of current feminist ideology.
You've made the same post several times ITT. Yet when others respond, you have no comment. Fuck off faggot.

>>9697918
Pretty sure they'd have to read stuff to do that.

>>9697544
Your problem is that you're leaping from anon's single-post summary of feminism and Marxism to your own even more exaggerated 'but that's literally...' version of anon's post. At no point are you actually reading any of the books you're complaining about to learn about them- you're just confirming your own biases.

>>9697900

I see nothing controversial about this statement. After all, the whole point of women's studies was to provide female "scholars" with safe jobs and salaries. It's academic welfare for dunces.

Why does /lit/ hate women so much?

>>9698022
All the Anons here who hate women have never had sex.

>>9697888
Wonder what triggered this reaction. Did anon hear two people use the same cliche, and link them in their mind? Is the hammer nail cliche forbidden now, much like nobody is allowed to use the useful word 'actually'?

>>9697797

>waaah /lit/ isn't taking vagina crit seriously

You fundamentally don't understand the nature of 4chan. It's positively absurd for you to waltz in here whining about how the thread isn't serious enough or whatever the fuck it is you wanted.

And of course your parting shot is that we don't read. Yeah we get it. We don't read. No one on /fit/ lifts. No one on /v/ plays. Everyone on /fa/ is a slob. Only you know anything.

>>9698043
>triggered

>>9698054

>dickhead

>>9698058
>double triggered

>>9697544
>Oh wait, everything is worthless it's all power.

I wish Jordan Peterson, a man who says he was tremendously influenced by Nietzsche, would actually take Nietzsche's conclusions seriously.

Everyone knows that values are only values if they are backed up by power.

You can have 50000000 different interpretations of the same value structure, and at some point power has to insert itself and say "This is the canonical interpretation, not all these others".

>>9698063
"Power" is too nebulous. I really like Tolstoy's historical dialectic in W&P, basically that values are only justified through historical events. The idea is that we are always just becoming, and we're determined by events that we are contributing to.

>>9698070
>"Power" is too nebulous

Well, I could've used the word authority instead, which is synonymous.

Either way, Nietzsche's ideas have a perspectival and a postmodern conclusion; namely that there are infinite interpretations and that there is a chain of signification in language that is also infinite.

So how do you decide where to stop the infinite chain of interpretation? Authority does.

There's virtually a limitless amount of ways to grade a test if you're a teacher, but the most important thing is that the teacher is the one with authority to decide who gets a passing grade.

>>9698081
Authority is not entirely arbitrary. The teacher could only grade a geometry exam within a certain scope. Authority is also at the will of those who are under it. You are free to agree or disagree with authority. Only academics feel neurotic about it on a focauldian level.

>>9698090
>The teacher could only grade a geometry exam within a certain scope

That's true. And Nietzsche would agree that science is slightly different.

But Nietzsche would argue that nothing of actual human importance hinges on scientific objectivity.

Most people agree that the world is an oblate spheroid, but most of the world do not agree how high taxes should be.

E.g every conflict, trivial or large, that revolves around humans, needs power and authority to be resolved.

>>9698093
I think that is a kind of teleology, Nietzsche observes that authority is the arbitrator and so he thinks that arbitration must be a function of authority. But that is a problem essentialism generally.

>>9698090
I think the test example is illuminating as to why academia is so strange about their obsession with "violence", and also why postmodernism has found less purchase in the sciences (but it infiltrates it more so everyday). And you are right about authority being at the will of those under it as numerous student revolts will attest. Really the authority of academia has started to crumble, and the student trumps the teacher almost always.

>>9698106
The problem is that Nietzsche, would he be alive, would probably argue that Peterson is just inserting authority into the interpretative structure, and choosing a specific canonical metanarrative at the expense of all the other possible interpretations.

Which he is. The question arises why one should choose to agree with Peterson's specific pragmatist mytho-poetic interpretation of the World.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Bachofen
>Bachofen is most often connected with his theories surrounding prehistoric matriarchy, or Das Mutterrecht, the title of his seminal 1861 book Mother Right: an investigation of the religious and juridical character of matriarchy in the Ancient World. Bachofen assembled documentation demonstrating that motherhood is the source of human society, religion, morality, and decorum. He postulated an archaic "mother-right" within the context of a primeval Matriarchal religion or Urreligion.

>>969755
Supposedly native kekistani

File: 32.png (110KB, 232x265px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 232x265px

>>9697403
thats not how critical theory works. if you want to read a text as if it were for the time it was written, you have to look at it with old historicism.

>>9697418
>>9697469
>>9697487
>>9697514
>>9697550
Fucking hell, the number of feminazis on this board astound me. Also, tits or gtfo.

>>9698169
Goddam' straight

>>9698022
This thread should serve as exhibit A as to why.

>>9698169
They're right though. The OP clearly did not understand what feminist literary theory is.

>>9698022
>You disagree with me so you must be a virgin who hates women because of that. :) Teehee, bye bye!

>>9697508
>male dominated: brotherhood
>female dominated: suffering
WTF I'm a misogynist now!

>>9697698
I'm dragging this post up from the shit in case this anon sees it. Thank for this post, mate. I didn't see this response last night. I'm glad there can be some thoughtful exchange here.

>>9698412
you suck at implications

>>9697698
good post

>>9698114
He probably believes that it's the best working interpretation.

>>9697446
Tbf, we nothing historically about the lives of most women in antiquity besides what their husbands wrote on their grave stones so any knew data we can find would be helpful
The rest is just postmodernist drivel.

>>9697446
kek

>>9698022

Women != annoying feminist dykes

To be honest I don't even mind feminist crit, but it's not something I want to read a lot of.

the problem is when you consciously approach a work from an ideological perspective your perception of that work will be fundamentally distorted. That's why it's hard to take feminist crit seriously. Not because it's mostly populated by women but because the narratives it tells are artificial.

>>9700207
I mean let's be real here. It IS hard to take women seriously.

>>9700232

Depends.
I'm often impressed with women's aesthetic judgements and emotional intelligence. I mean just women I know in real life.

>>9697403
dem tootsies tho

>>9700207
The distorsion is inevitable, as interpretation is an ideological act directing attention to fragments of the text. What's artificial is the pretension that the text can be wholly taken in by the interpreter and render a full critique.

>>9700373

Interpretation is not necessarily an ideological act it can and should be a personal act.

>>9700376
How is a personal act not ideological?

>>9697440

>>9700049
Know nothing*
New* not knew
Christ.

>>9700381

Do you even know what ideology is?
>inb4 "everything is ideology" meme

>>9700389
Yes, I do.

>>9700395

Your previous question implies that you don't.

>>9700397
Care to answer the question I asked, then?

>>9700398

Obviously not since it's apparent that we don't share the same idea of what ideological means
It's only meaningful to discuss if we both think there is a distinction between the two. Since you evidently think personal worlds are ideological and are also unwilling to clarify your idea of ideological then there isn't really anything to discuss.

>>9700409
sure

>>9700421

Textbook pseud.
Content with a magical omnipotence that is never disproved because never tested. If you had anything to say you would have done so.

>>9700253
>emotional intelligence
Oh that's a laugh m8

>>9698022
>>9698361

I think /lit/ doesn't hate women. However, this being an anonymous board where race, age, gender etc, are generally hidden, the feminist style of over-assertive, patronizing posts, which are a little too-self important, stand out from the rest. And that does not go down well, mostly because women literally, and I use the word correctly here, invest themselves emotionally in this cyber-struggle against an anonymous kyriarchy, which may or may not even exist.

It's not just feminists, but everyone who disturbs the literary equilibrium of /lit/ by infusing politics, religion and general shitposting gets chewed out. Feminists, too, by definition, post on /pol/, as feminist theory is more political than literal -- and its literal theory has political undertones.

That said, ladies, TITS OR GTFO.

>>9700480
>literally, and I use the word correctly here,
>*tip*
>everyone who disturbs the literary equilibrium of /lit/ by infusing politics, religion and general shitposting gets chewed out.
Are you new?

>>9700427
Anon was saying that personal motives can be interpreted as ideological, which makes sense to me. You, on the other hand, refused to clarify your position about personal acts and their relation to ideology. Rather, you illustrated it by being condescending.

>>9700049
>new data
There literally is no such data for the exact reasons you just described. Feminist historical theory is inherently revisionist, as even any contemporary historical sources are themselves most often extrapolating or revisionist.
The concept of a feminist historical lense is in and of itself a modern, and thus anachronistic, invention in 99% of cases.

I actually consider myself something of a reactionary, but as a woman who went to college in these times I understand what they mean. It's similar to doing a Marxian analysis of something and analyzing the class assumptions and dynamics the author may not have even realized are there. You can do the same thing with gender roles, it's basically just paying attention to how the ladies in the story are treated.

>>9697450

my dude like it's pretty standard is most humanities areas and art criticism these days to look at multiple ways of seeing any work. feminism is one lense, structuralism and postmodernism and shit are other ones. Pretty obvious that anything can relate to a certain politics even if it predates said politics. are you a big idiot?

>>9701212
Not really...they just offer feminist critique of the culture of the day from what I see. I've seen no revisonist history with Roman history. Granted some feminists can be biased and study events based on their own modern morality rather than how women must have felt(see those fucking Ted Ed videos on Ancient Rome).
I was just pointing out that wanting to study women in antiquity isn't that ridiculous or uninspired since there is so much we don't know. And we will never know whether or not there is more so why give up?

File: hesright.jpg (72KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x598px

>>9700480

>>9700207
Got any examples of non-distorted, non-'artificial' literary criticisms, anon? I'd be intrigued to know what you have in mind as an alternative.

>>9702490
Anything that doesn't start all its arguments based on mere biological distinction would be a good start.

>>9697403
How the fuck do you think someone from 20th or 21th century can be feminist in western culture? They have absolutely nothing to brag about.

File: suicide-girl.jpg (87KB, 800x976px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x976px

>>9702635
Besides, 19th century's Britain is where the all the fun is

>>9702646
*18th century

Feminist criticism isn't necissarily bad criticism, but I reject it because I'm not a feminist. Aestheticists are idiots who are too scared to reject liberal ideas and fall back on "durr what about pure aesthetics". If the work and the author's intentions support it, I will always prefer a right-wing interpretation.

>>9701238
Kill yourself you stupid bitch

>>9701238
Fucking flash em tits you cunt

>>9697846
kek I can imagine Norm exclaiming that shit

>>9698022
You're incredibly vain and boring. I've met only three genuinely interesting women, and all three had severe mental issues.

>>9703375

Says more about you than the women.

>>9703462
Nonsense. I am the Sublime.

>>9703487
the eternal feminine draws us ever onward and upward

>No book recs

I have Madwoman in the Attic, what else is there?

>>9698022
The kernel of /lit/ that makes /lit/ more interesting than /r/books or any other Reddit garbage website, or even fifth-rate watered-down normie training wheels memeshit like /r/badphilosophy, is described by Paglia:
>Men's egotism, so disgusting in the talentless, is the source of their greatness as a sex. [...] Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species.

The "egotism" of "self-mutilation" is the willingness to suffer for the sake of individuation and selectness, as Gasset said:
>The select man, the excellent man is urged, by interior necessity, to appeal from himself to some standard beyond himself, superior to himself, whose service he freely accepts. ... Nobility is synonymous with a life of effort, ever set on excelling oneself, in passing beyond what one is to what one sets up as a duty and an obligation. In this way the noble life stands opposed to the common or inert life, which reclines statically upon itself, condemned to perpetual immobility, unless an external force compels it to come out of itself.

Reddit normies don't do this, because they've been neutered into thinking they are herd animals, and that anything requiring effort or sacrifice is mean and scary, that everyone should be a winner without even trying. And women are the arch-normies of the whole normie herd. Self-worth and the feeling of being "excellent" come so easy to them, because of constant false praise from sycophantic men, and it seems to be their nature to be total dilettantes to begin with, that even when one of them accidentally and anomalously does something excellent, they get such disproportionate praise that they sell the whole farm and live off the interest of that one achievement forever.

To men who are attuned to the possibility of excellence, even if they aren't excellent yet, women are inherently disgusting. They're a waste of humanity, there's something not quite right about them, it's like a disharmony in the whole scheme of things that God would take the infinite human potential for self-cultivation and couple it with the motives and the self-satisfaction of a pig. Different men deal with this in different ways, often by unconsciously convincing themselves that women are something like domestic pets. But in an atmosphere like /lit/, you're going to get a lot of non-sublimated honesty: Women are literally disgusting in their dilettantism, their self-satisfaction, and how fucking boring and non-contributing they are.

tldr: If you're even slightly attuned to the possibility of your own excellence, people who are content to be pointless nothings start to seem like pigs.

>>9703537

Do you genuinely believe that personality is predetermined via sex to that extent? You sound inexperienced.

>>9703557
Drives and impulses are subject to natural selection. There's a reason why men are so horny as to compel them to make outright bad and risky decisions regularly, and women are capable of being so selective about sex that they can just say "no" to inferior suitors, forever, forcing those suitors to either go fight a sabretooth and say "what about now?", or accept that they're going to be jerking off in the dust forever.

Those drives are subtle things. We share them recognizably not just with other mammals but with fucking arthropods and insects. They've evolved not by passing out of existence but by layering on top of one another and sublimating into higher drives.

Here's Charles Darwin, on the "energy" (drive, Trieb) to "persevere" at accomplishing things (sublimate the drive into an objective actuality, whether mental or physical):
>Now, when two men are put into competition, or a man with a woman, both possessed of every mental quality in equal perfection, save that one has higher energy, perseverance, and courage, the latter will generally become more eminent in every pursuit, and will gain the ascendancy. J. Stuart Mill remarks "The things in which man most excels woman are those which require most plodding, and long hammering at single thoughts." What is this but energy and perseverance?) He may be said to possess genius ...
>But this view of genius is perhaps deficient; for without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,--that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring.
>Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

It's pretty simple stuff. Ironically, this:
>You sound inexperienced.
is a low-level sublimation, common to low quality men. The "drive" you are experiencing is the sex drive, but the best way you have found of actualising that drive is to pathetically defend women's honor, not realising every other peon is doing the same. Unconsciously cognizant of the importance of pussy, your ultimate goal, you channel your white knighting into the ultimate attack: "I bet you can't even GET the pussy! The pussy I will get, for smiting you."

If you're a woman, proof is still in the pudding: You're using an attack created BY the men I just described, who make it intersubjectively possible for you, by perennially using it themselves.

>>9697435
>rants on feminism

What rants you retard? Feminism wasn't even a thing in their time. There still isn't a proper German word for feminism to this day

>>9703592

It's hilarious how your pre-prepared spiel devolved into the typically bitter /r9k/ discourse. Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously after that?

>>9704045
t. butthurt woman

>>9702675
>Feminist criticism isn't necissarily bad criticism, but I reject it because I'm not a feminist
muh identity politics

>>9703615
The word feminism was coined by Fourier in French before Nietzsche was born and was a contemporary of Schopenhauer (though he dies before Schopenhauer). Both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have rants on the feminisation of society and activists for feminism, and you clearly don't read shit. Nietzsche didn't like German either and preferred the French translations of his work to the German, btw, you utter pseud.

File: kafka_laughed.jpg (104KB, 350x305px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 350x305px

>>9697403
>marxist interpretation

These niggas for real? How the fuck can you think something written by a 19th century German philosopher was in any way dialectical materialist?

File: images.jpg (131KB, 1800x2700px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1800x2700px

Ironic, he disliked women.

File: 1373420240453.jpg (69KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 520x678px

>>9697403
>senior capstone course studying the etymology of fairy tales
>every stupid whore in my class is writing feminist analyses of literature
>write my dissertation on Hans Christian Andersen's theological framework
>professor gives me a 100 and personally thanks me for not writing about feminism
Even the professors are tired of this shit.

>>9706638
see:>>9697446

>>9697403
I'm not sure if /lit/ understands the difference between pop feminism (i.e. what you see on Buzzfeed/HuffPost/Clinton2016), feminism the fourth wave of a social movement that has been on and off since the 1900s (abortion and shit), radical feminism (aka women that hate trannies a la Gender Critical, or women that hate all men, basically the edgy parts of Tumblr), or feminism the academic framework that's been used for decades in serious contexts.

The fact that me knowing this much about the actual fucking topic at hand is enough for nu/lit/ to try and discredit me as "Tumblr" says fucking volumes about /lit/'s ability to have rational discussion about literature and philosophy dealing with sex, gender, and race (or hell even created by people who aren't white dudes) beyond buzzwords and shitposting, which indirectly is an attitude that will only further spur pop feminism (a subsect of pop liberalism)'s insatiable march towards drowing intellectualism itself in its toxic fumes.

>>9700207
That's literally the point. To look at it differently. Through a different lens. No, your view does not become "distorted" in such a way that you lose sight of the "true" meaning of the text, at least any more than you already and irrevocably are influenced by your preconceived notions about the world. You just look at it differently. You can learn things that way.

File: 1470430840456.jpg (49KB, 599x491px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 599x491px

>>9697446
>Who rapes me more by having existed?

>>9708139
>or hell even created by people who aren't white dudes
Go back to Tumblr

>>9708139
Fuck off you pretentious whore.

>>9708139
Spot on.
This is a board for people who buy books, read the first chapter and the Wikipedia plot summary and then take pictures of them to post to look intellectual while they chat shit about authors other /lit/ users have told them are bad, though, so any understanding of actual lit crit is too much to expect

>>9708139
>>9708610
Elliot Rodger was right. Can someone please get the vapid cunts roleplaying as academics off /lit/?

File: shill invasion.jpg (219KB, 1174x920px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1174x920px

>>9708637
They are shills paid to psyop and engineer the board in a certain way.

>>9708637
Just because not many people on this board seem to have studied literature seriously beyond high school doesn't mean you should deliberately dumb discussion down to that level to feel better about your lack of understanding.
There is no other board where saying something of substance is less valued than saying something basic but more easily understandable.

>>9708649
What? Until this garbled post, I've completely understood everything you've said, as have all the other non-leftist posters. That's how we know you're a vapid woman and haven't actually got anything clever to say.

>>9708670
I would start your literary education by learning to understand longer sentences then, pal. Try saying it out loud while you read, maybe.

>>9697403
the same way you can thing muhamed was feminist

File: IMG_1173.jpg (110KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x1024px

>>9708591
>>9708608
Like fucking clockwork.

>>9708644
>implying the bump on 4chan wasn't an influx of Leddit types hopping on the /pol/train and shitting up the place.

>>9708840
t. paid shill

>>9708844
> t. underage redditor

>>9708139

>I'm not sure if /lit/ understands the difference between pop feminism. . .blah blah blah

If you decant raw sewage into different types of bottles and containers, it's still sewage.

>>9708869
It's like trying to discuss nihilism as a philosophy when over half of the thread only knows it through watching Rick and Morty and a few episodes of Bojack Horseman.

If you want to tear feminist theory to shreds, be my fucking guest but do it under intellectually honest pretenses.