/lit/ - Literature

The only decent books on the subject are feminist essays. This is due to the fact that "masculinity," like "art," has no definition. Rather, it is a nonsensical cultural phenomenon, and evaluating something based on it should immediately destroy anybody's credibility.
If you would like to know about the differences between genders, read up on science, not social theory. It should tell you all you need to know - there are slight differences in attitude, but no hopeless gap.

>>3755004
>Completely irrational and rather obtuse
Welcome to human interaction.

>>3755030
>The only decent books on the subject are feminist essays.
Do you consider the countless pages written on women "masculinist" essays?

>>3755050

>>3755004
>>overrated gender

/thread

>>3755050
That is a silly word, but ultimately, yes. One cannot judge one's own gender, as one can never understand another standpoint. Unless one is a master of introspection, the sexes are better fit to judge each other than to judge themselves.

The essence of man is superiority, ruling, domination.

>>3755089

No, the essence of a man is Old Spice.

>>3755089

[citation needed]

>>3755089
Says who? This sounds incredibly trite so I'm inclined to dismiss it as a false truth.

>>3755108
Friedrich Nietzsche. He was brilliant in many ways, but his concept of masculinity strikes me and many others as nonsensical and somewhat masturbatory.

>>3755104
Men have apparently dominated the other half of the human race for the entirety of human civilization, while holding virtually all ruling offices, so there you go.

>>3755119

Masculinity is sex.

Femininity is transcendence.

there is no essence of masculinity. it's all a performance. read your butler.

>>3755128
>it's all a performance
So a woman can become a man too?

>>3755132
Technically.

>>3755120
In other words, my source would be feminist theory. If anything shows that one sex is superior to the other, I think male domination of women for the entirety of history would do it.

>To me it seems like an overrated gender
Most men are mediocre, with a few geniuses appearing from time to time.
On the other hand, all women are rather average.

>>3755132
If raised as one. Most social differences between the sexes are due to nurture.

>>3755145
>male domination of women for the entirety of history would do it.
I don't understand how you'd think men have been dominating women at all. Women have been living quiet lives at home while their husbands have been waging wars and toiling the fields. Who was really dominating the other? It entirely depends on your definition of domination.

>>3755132
what are transmen?

>>3755158
Except for physical strenght, not that it matters today. But it did in the past.

>>3755159
I am using the feminist view of the subject, as I already stated. Their position ironically renders women as inferior.

>>3755165
Physical strength is so irrelevant in today's world that it does not even warrant a mention. Besides, already we have seen bleeding of traits between the sexes in this regard. Female bodybuilders are increasingly common and males are much more likely to be weak than ever before.

>>3755004

Have you read Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man?

If not, then get out of /lit/

>>3755172
If you believe that conspiracy theory-esque bullshit, you should get out of /lit/ and back into /pol/.

all of humanity is also included in this however

So this is a total non-answer, but I've been thinking a lot about contextualization. It strikes me how we can always see our own inner reasons and rationalizations, emotions and passions, and are left always judging others from their actions, gestures, and whatever noises or scribbles they make. This necessarily seems to lead to our overestimating our own capabilities and underestimating others. This could be especially true when it comes to the Other, if that be members of the other gender.

>>3755004
Read this, be enthralled.

In short: the "essence of masculinity" (insofar there is such a thing) is thymos.

the male is the creative force, he goes out into the world to make of it what he will according to his temperament and gains knowledge via experimentation. Women are always in a nurturing/supportive role and aid the male by taking his seed and giving it a place to grow, nurturing his purpose. Women are not capable of true creativity like men are, just like men know nothing of conception and bearing children. If a woman creates a piece of art she's merely nurturing an existing form, and that form only came into existence via the males creativity.

then see the basic hunter/gatherer setup, it's true despite whatever you may have heard. If entire generations survived by that rule we'd be fools to think there wasn't some validity to it. Neither gender can survive without the other and people who deny gender roles are just foolish.

>>3755177

Make you, you cancerous tripfag.

>>3755195
So Mary Shelly's Frankenstein wasn't an act of true creativity? Maybe no true Scotsman would think as much, but...

>>3755195
But almost all women can "take a seed and make it grow" as you put it. However, only a handful of men are creative. Does it mean those who aren't are completely useless?
As much as you'd hate it to admit it, some women are creative too, you can't just deny that.
I think your vision of the world is a bit simplistic.

>>3755218
She got the ideas from somewhere then made it bigger. She did not create it out of nothing.

>>3755226
And men somehow create things out of nothing?Am i being rused?

This book should help.

>>3755237
I think we're being rused, mate.

>>3755220
Creativity isn't constricted to art, it could be inventions, scientific discoveries, or simple creative solutions for his own life. Women always take existing forms and expand on them, only males are capable of making something appear from nothing. Why do you think all the greatests artist, writers, politicians and inventors are male?

And if a male isn't being creative in his life, he's just playing a female role. Not necessarily useless, but lets not act like he's living a fulfilling life.

>>3755195

Please don't derail the thread by engaging with this dude.
>>3755226

Look at this shit.

Just stick to the OP's question. You all were doing well for /lit/.

>>3755241
I'm basically a sexist pig but not even I believe that. Get it together man.

>>3755241

If this logic gets any more circular we're gonna be on a road trip to Wally World

>>3755081
what is science and observation of social behavior

Yourcenar basically convinced me that women can write better than men.
Any other female author on the same level?

>>3755257
If you don't know of others then why are you convinced women are better writers?

This is how most of /lit/ looks most likely, so don't ask them about what it is to be a man. You'd be better of at /fit/ as they have a sense of masculine pride. However as you could predict, they can be complete hyperboles about this, so take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Somebody told me Iron John's A book about men isn't that bad. just a tip. or use google. helps too.

>>3755265
I didn't say they were better writers, just that, in my opinion, this one writes better than most men.
Sorry if my sentence was confusing.

>>3755268
>use google
People should stop saying this on 4chan. What's the point of an imageboard if you can use google anyway?

>>3755269
>women can write better than men
>in my opinion, this one writes better than most men
>I didn't say they were better writers

Does not compute retard.

>>3755268
That guy is not that bad looking. I'd probably suck his cock if he's smart enough.

>>3755275
ONE woman writing better than MOST men =/= ALL women write better than ALL men.
Does it compute now?

>>3755280
Yes it does. My stupidity knows no bounds. I apologize for the insult.

>>3755272
Image boards are for discussions, i suppose. You can dump stuff. I did recommend him a book. I also recommended him he could use google if he wants to find a wide array of works. After all, google is useful in that sense. Why do you detest an answer that includes google even though its a legitimate and useful response? Most people don't even bother to use google when they are looking for works so its necessary to remind them every time they post.

masculintiy: always having to be something you can never entirely be?
femininity: always-already being something you never quite are??

>>3755327
That sounds pretty but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

>because until now the only men I've know have been completely irrational and rather obtuse.

Explain further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2oZWpqtNi4

>>3755158
complete bullshit. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows men and women's minds have evolved differently, because there have been different evolutionary pressures on both. This does not mean one is superior from the other, but both have very different natures.

>>3755518

evolutionary reductionist pls go

>>3755527
what are you talking about? I'm just stating the facts. Look at the Kibbutz experiment in Israel, when they tried to raise kids without any gender roles. Men were even more aggressive and violent, and women even more eager to perform traditional feminine task.

>>3755527
evolutionary reductionists can be annoying when they go full edgy but that guy's points are totally different

>>3755547
>>3755551

I asked you nicely to go. You're as bad as the "race realists".

>>3755547
It's true. When people are legitimately free to do whatever they want (not pressured either way), they are more likely to conform to their appropriate gender roles.

>>3755547
There are psychological differences between men and women in general, but these vary with individuals. Moreover, I think individual psychology as manifested in behavior probably owes more to sexuality, and what an individual perceives as making them a desirable mate by those they desire, than by genetic differences (which as I've said, I don't deny as existing).

>>3755555
You don't deserve those quints. I know it's a habit of social justice kids to completely disregard logic, but this is pure science. Even religious institutions typically recognize when science contradicts their teachings.

>>3755004
The Bell Jar

>>3755565
>I know it's a habit of social justice kids to completely disregard reality

ftfy

>>3755547
>Using Israeli definitions of "traditional" gendered tasks to back up your evolutionary argument

>>3755559

Please direct me to this vacuum without society where people are "not pressured either way".

Did they raise these children in desert, without any form of media access? That sounds like torture.

>>3755565

>but this is pure science

That's what they all say. And then they link 20 studies about how niggers are responsible for everything wrong in the world.

I bet you're one of the ones that believes that kind of "pure science".

I don't know if it's the "essence of masculinity" or any other such grandiose bullshit, but loneliness is an emotion experienced much more by men than it is by women.

>>3755565
I don't see what this has to do with social justice, given the is/ought problem and all that. Women are different than men, but superior in some ways. Specifically, in that the average woman is smarter than the average man, even if the smartest men tend to smarter than the smartest women. They are also better at linguistic reasoning, while men tend to be better at spatial reasoning.

>>3755565
>pure science

Why are people still replying to this guy...

>>3755004

Storm of Steel

>>3755555
>>3755555

The genetic differences between races only accounts for around 6% of the genes you use (I think, it's somwhere ~6), which is a negligible amount and means you are more genetically identical to some members of other races than those of your own. And, with the amount of time the races have been separated, it is unlikely they have really evolved to have different minds/behavior, and there is no proof to say that they have (the bell curve is BS).

Men and women are different, however. Both have had evolution rewarding different behaviors since before homo sapiens were even a thing. So, both have developed different behavior and minds, as well as bodies, of course.

For example, the men that left the most descendants were the ones that sowed their wild oats and managed to have a lot of indiscriminate sex.

Promiscuous women, on the other hand, were not rewarded for such behavior. Their offspring were probably killed by men who thought the children were not their own, or the promiscuous women were unable to provide for their children because there was no man to help provide. Meanwhile, women who were able to monopolize a man in a pair-bond were the ones who left the most descendants. (And yes, the pair-bond was the most common form of mating in hunter-gatherer societies.

This is just one example, but yeah, men and women are different in a ton of ways. Doesn't make one superior to the other, just means they, on average, have different tendencies and instincts. But since when was man limited by his instincts?

>>3755649
This guy gets it.

>>3755580
Please direct me to a society that has existed de novo and was not created as a result of humans which have a universal, evolved nature.

Did humans just magically appear in a functioning government?

>>3755649

I asked you to go. You're being very rude.

>>3755662

What are you talking about?

>>3755660
It's pretty much all taken from the book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, which pretty much sums up most modern day thinking about evolution. Turns out sexual selection is the most important part, and are brains probably evolved as a means to outwit those of our own gender to get more babies. Everything else brains do are just cool side effects.

>>3755649
>sowed their wild oats
This phrase comes from soldiers returning home and sowing coarse oats into the ground ignorantly. Obviously men have evolved to say all kinds of stupidities, but stupidity between men varies greatly.

>>3755123
>>3755123
this.

>>3755666
But what about gay people

>>3755665
I'm saying that societies are the way they are because humans made them in their reflection.

You are saying society forms human nature. I am saying human nature formed societies, which then reinforced this human nature.

So, societies teach women to act like women because that's what women normally act like.

>>3755672

I'm sorry but I make it my policy never to speak to someone who uses "human nature" sincerely.

>>3755671
Difficult, but probably genetic as well. Male homosexuality probably comes from recessive genes in mother. Probably has not been weeded out because it is somehow connected to the immune system, which never gets rid of old genes b/c they could be useful to combating diseases which are constantly changing. Our species rarely ever completely gets rid of genes because of this reason.

Also, reinforces differences between men and women. Gay men are much more likely to have tons of promiscuous sex, b/c that is what men have evolved to seek out, and the only thing keeping them from that is women not wanting to have lots of sex. Lesbians, on the other hand, are much more likely to have very few sexual partners and long lasting relationships.

>>3755004
I would recommend reading any literature based on European ancient history. ex. spartans, greeks, and romans.

>>3755687
Sources for those claims about the sexual behavior of gay men and lesbians?

I'm actually interested

>>3755679
There is a universal human kidney, a universal human stomach, and a universal human pattern of behavior. Do you think humans behave differently than dogs or bees because society just raised them differently? Then why can't we raise a bee to be a human?

Not like there cannot be people whose behaviors do not fall into this universal nature, just like some people have mutated kidneys. But, this is just about the average.

Also, a human nature doesn't mean humans are bound by it. Men are inclined to murder, which is why we have laws against murder.

>>3755691
Oh, it was a study done by the Kinsey Institute in Pre-aids San Francisco. 75% of gay men had had 100 or more sexual partners, and 25% a thousand or more. Lesbians, on the other hand had, on average, less than 10.

>>3755694
>a universal human stomach
nice try, Feuerbach

>>3755687
Your theory about homosexuality coming from recessive genes is pretty dumb and inaccurate but I'm not a scientist; current theories have something to do with the brain being washed over with chemicals or something it's pretty dope

>>3755711
I feel like there are some exacerbating circumstances to that study

Not saying the generalization doesn't hold, but you have to consider the sample pool

>>3755711
IIRC there was also an inordinately high number who stated that they had consumed urine and feces

>>3755716
true, true.

But, you never see any lesbian bath houses, do you?

>Ctrl+F "Hemingway"
>0 Results

I'm disappointed in all of you.

>>3755715
No, it's true. Brain washed over with chemicals? Nope, that's bullshit.. It's a combo of genes and hormones. It's been proven to be hereditary.

>>3755723

Hemingway writes caricatures. There isn't a single person in his entire oeuvre.

>>3755649

>Read pop science
>think you're an expert

We should ban pop science.

>>3755715
Why the hell wouldn't there be an average human nature? I'll say average instead of universal since that's less absolute. But, since humans are one species, I feel like its easier to assume there is an average human nature than not, in the same way there is an average kidney, etc. Can you prove there isn't? Didn't think so.

Overwhelming amount of evidence on my side, though.

>>3755722
>But, you never see any lesbian bath houses, do you?

Maybe YOU don't.

>>3755736

I can show you the kidney in every person. Can you show me the nature?

>>3755735
way to actually reply to the points. I'm actually studying biology in school. Red Queen was just a book we read for an elective, and it sums up modern thinking on the subject very well.

>>3755732
> Thinks characters in The Sun Also Rises were caricatures clear exception with the bullfighter
> Never read his short stories
Dude is a versatile writer, don't be a dope.

>>3755740

>undergrad
>thinks he knows anything
>reads pop science
>thinks he knows anything

>>3755711
Honestly that sounds really disgusting..

>>3755739
I am arguing that in the same way all humans have a similar kidney, they have a similar nature, with very few exceptions. I see no reason to believe that as it is with kidneys, it is not with behavior. Unless, you can show me some impetus for thinking otherwise?

>>3755722
home depot

More seriously, probably lesbian bars serve a similar function.

>>3755749

You talk like an idiot and your reasoning is ridiculous.

>>3755722
>lesbian bath houses
If they aren't making any, we should seriously make one for them and install cameras

>>3755751
But why no bath houses, full of orgies and stop-before-going-home blowjobs (or cunnilingus in this case)? And why do women have such a lack of interest in porn, but such a huge interest in shitty romance novels like Twilight? While no romance books targeted to men work, but men flock to porn? And porn targeted to women, like playgirl, end up being consumed more by gay men?

>>3755759
as far as porn goes,
men are generlally more visually oriented when it comes to arousal

>>3755748
Why do you think AIDs ripped them up so badly? Disgusting amoral freaks, the lot of them.

>>3755754
... That's basically Aristotle's reasoning for everything.

>as it is with flutes, surely it is with cakes?

Either way, you have no reason to believe there ISN'T an average human nature, while I have a reason to believe there is.

Besides, it's just stupid to think there isn't. Why would an entire fucking species all with the same fucking genetic locus have different behaviors? Why don't we see a society where a smile means "I'm sad"? Why don't we see any cultures where men raise babies while women work the fields?

>>3755649
No offense to both of the women who visit /lit/, but my experience has been that females don't naturally shy away from promiscuity. Also, if you that men are all raging Adonises who spread their seed and party hard, I'd advise you to visit /r9k/ for about 10 seconds. That post sounds like a lot of theory crafting that fits with certain worldviews. I think that gender roles are just one of those things that are virtually impossible to objectively measure without resorting to some pretty inhumane tests.

>Somebody responds to a gender discussion with anything other than a tabula rasa explanation for differences.
>LEL GET OUT OF HERE WITH YOUR POP PSEUDOSCIENCE, I'VE READ JUDITH BUTLER ESSAYS THAT CONTRADICT YOU AND THEREFORE AM QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT WITH AUTHORITY.

>>3755766
That's what I'm saying. They are more visually oriented because of their genes, not because of society, though. That's my point.

>>3755772
>both of the women that visit /lit/

Wait, there are 2 of them?

Also, all men are not raging Adonises who spread their seed, but most men want to be. Mainly b/c they are descended from men who had an inclination to, and did. So the desire to do that is there. That's why I'd be shocked to find one dude on /r9k/ not up for a threesome with two smoking hot chicks (or men, if that's their thing).

>>3755774
>implying anyone believes in fabula rasa
disgusting

>>3755768
that doesn't give you license to make up whatever particular experiences you've had into some sort of essential human order that makes deviants into monsters you fucking sociopath

>>3755780
I'm going to try to link a thread crossboard

I used to know how to do this, but I've since forgotten.

Wish me luck.

>>>/r9k/6905625

So far we have two no's and one guy worried about diseases

We're up to a dozen no's and one guy repeatedly telling everyone else that they're betas. I think we've all learned something about human nature

>>3755527
>implying reductionism isn't just the cold hard truth

>>3755123
>Masculinity is sex.
Prove it.
>Femininity is transcendence.
Transcendence of what?
Also: prove it.

>>3755170
Female bodybuilders are a minority, a very small minority.

Men are weaker because they haven't worked their muscles because they didn't need to.
The ease of growth of muscles for men still exists.
What traits are you talking about other than physical strength then?

>>3755587
Close but nope, men are usually either retarded or geniuses, split at about 50/50, where as women are usually in the middle, usually mediocre.

Men are the wildcard, the pass/fail of evolution.

We're either the greatest ever or miserable failures.

>>3755899
>demands

Just who do you think you are?

>>3755941
Civility is all well and good, but there's a point at which it just becomes being a huge faggot ass bitch, and what you're asking of me would force me to cross that line to into meekness that I just ain't gonna do.

>>3755972
lel, a pleb who needs a good rapin

>>3755980
m8, I ain't gay, but I'm sure there are a lot of dudes who would want to fuck you in the ass, so why not go check out /lgbt/ before you shreck yourself?

>>3755983
if you got raped, you would be cured of your boyhood and become a man

it's not too late

Despite as much if not more (due to prolonged periods of leisure and idleness due to traditional gender roles) chance to create great literature, The Tale of Genji and Frankenstein remain the only 2 notable pieces of literature ever created by women. Coincidence?

>>3755992
oh how "witty"

cheers!

>>3755985
Shit, seriously? Is that how you become a man?
I'm not so sure I want to be a man now.

Maybe I'll come up with a new way of life, a new gender, based around fucking women, getting money, acquiring freedom, forging my own path in life, deciding what's wrong and right according to my own sensibilities mixed with logic and reason, and finding true bliss, peace, and happiness.

I will become something other than human.

See you on the other side m8.
Get schrecked.

>>3755992
I'd say that maybe to write great literature you need a great deal of intelligence, wisdom, passion, and life experience, something women don't seem to have much of.

>>3756003
Of course you don't want to become a man.

You're a scared little boy hiding behind mommy's skirt.

>>3755996
go fuck yourself

>>3756026
Do you have any kids?

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as
strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women
may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

You fucking people.

You fucking, fucking people.

>>3755004
>essence
>masculinity

its like you doing it on purpose. masculinity is a social construct.

>>3755239

That Funke is a real character, huh?

>>3756037
>>3758510
Let me rephrase that for OP since it causes you so much trouble. WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THIS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT?

>>3758864
pls

>>3758864

Muh tabula rasa!

>>3758864

Lifting weights and owning a lot of guns.

There I've told you what you want to hear now run along.

Masculinity?

The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell.
The Hazards of Being Male by Herb Goldberg
Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent.

I haven't read, but have been recommended:
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
4 Hour Chef
Man 2.0: Engineering the Alpha

You might consider some Pickup Artist books if you're interested in that particular facet of masculinity. Recent research in academia has justified a slew of PUA concepts like Preselection so it's seeing a slight resurgence.

I'd also recommend general Human philosophical work like Thich Nhat Hanh's Buddhist philosophy, though it's not particularly male focused.

>>3759171
Oh, and avoid Feminist content as much as possible. To define yourself by others, and especially by women, is the antithesis of healthy male behavior, and general human behavior, and our species has invested heavily for most of its 200,000 history in the idea that women define men (when they exercise selectivity in choosing mates).

If you want to be a disposable tool, read Feminism. Become a White Knight and serve women and society. If you're interested in self-actualization, defining your own self, and elevatoring your self esteem and mood, disregard the opinions of society and women actively.

>>3759197

History is not that old.

>>3759216
and "elevator" isn't a verb but i don't think any of that matters to a jackass like that

>>3759223

Hah. I didn't even catch that. My brain automatically fixed it.

>>3758864
the essence of this social construct is to repress woman and coloured people.

>>3755081
>the sexes are better fit to judge each other than to judge themselves.

That doesn't bode well for women

>>3755170
>Physical strength is so irrelevant in today's world that it does not even warrant a mention

Maybe in your sheltered world it is. But back in the real world, there is the military, construction workers, warehouse employees, etc. all need to be physically strong. Basically all of the people you depend on for the luxury of being able to ignore them.

And yes females can work in those jobs and no they don't do the same amount of work as the men do. Because they literally can't.

The Iliad.

>>3755004
Here ya go.
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/75-books#slide-1

Women don't have talents or ambitions. At most they have vanity.
It's not just that they are being "oppressed" either, they just lack the drive to master something. Youtube is open to everyone with a camera or recording software, but how many female "Youtubers" are there that are any good? 90% of all female output on Youtube is camwhoring and vanity, men produce the vast majority of the content.

We're definitely overrated as a whole. Women are, on average, more intelligent. However, with men there's a huge divide between the smart and the dumb. The average guy is, if I'm being blunt, dumb, while the men on the other end of this divide are often extremely intelligent. With women there's a more narrow spectrum where levels of intelligence are spread out more evenly.

>>3756060

Why are you quoting Ted?

>>3760176
>Women are, on average, more intelligent

Only if you have a female view of intelligence.
Women are more "witty", they have sharper tongues, etc., they also tend to have a clearer view of reality because their needs are simpler and so they have a better grip on knowing what it is they want. Men, on the other hand, are deeper thinkers, they have CONCEPTS, PRINCIPLES and IDEALS, which is why they are more conflicted and introspective, which is why men have notions of honour, respect, justice, etc., that women generally don't have. This makes men more "stupid" in the sense that they are more likely to harm themselves for the sake of ideals, and are more likely to become delusional and not notice things about reality, but it is also what makes them philosophers, artists, scientists, etc.

>>3755004
The Art of Manliness: Classic Skills and Advice for the Modern Man
Brett & Kate McKay

>>3760159
I second this as an example.

But I wonder if it would be enjoyable or even understandable to a person who does not already 'get' men. I have an inkling that the main ideals it represents are the very things OP considers 'irrational and obtuse' about our sex. Maybe.

>tfw you feel such a void inside that you can't even enjoy a 6/10 troll thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserk_(manga)

>>3760225
>Everything is a troll thread
Stop

>>3760229
make me, faggot

>>3755004

The Gender Equality Paradox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

decent troll, 4/10