or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 354  

post #5296 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuss View Post

 

wow.  just wow.

this post ignores Emily Bronte, Sylvia Plath, Maya Angelou, Mary Shelly, Jane Austen, Harper Lee, and a slew of others whose legacies are not in question.

great?  some of the greatest of all time.

 

They are great in low-brow fiction ( Emily Bronte, Jane Austen). And half of them ( American authors) I hear first time.


Edited by mutabor - 1/31/13 at 5:56am
post #5297 of 21760
Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. Great fiction.

Seriously though, if there's any field where I definitely don't want to make a distinction between male and female "practitioners", any artistic field would be it.
post #5298 of 21760
Double
post #5299 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. Great fiction.

 

Isn't Frankenstein a pop culture? Who takes seriously this stuff?

post #5300 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

 Female writers at best are not that great.

 

 

So the much bigger quantity of female thinkers, writers etc. which has appeared lately doesn't really say much about real quality. It is just the scale of information is much bigger and easier to access than before.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuss View Post

 

wow.  just wow.

this post ignores Emily Bronte, Sylvia Plath, Maya Angelou, Mary Shelly, Jane Austen, Harper Lee, and a slew of others whose legacies are not in question.

great?  some of the greatest of all time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

They are great in low-brow fiction ( Emily Bronte, Jane Austen). And half of them ( American authors) I hear first time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

Isn't Frankenstein a pop culture? Who takes seriously this stuff?

post #5301 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

Isn't Frankenstein a pop culture? Who takes seriously this stuff?

 

It's actually a great work of art. I'd put it up there with Don Quixote.

 

Read the original book. Everything else is watered down 

post #5302 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

Female writers at best are not that great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

They are great in low-brow fiction 

 

Off the top of my head, a few book recommendations that may help change your mind:

 

Patricia Duncker - Hallucinating Foucault

Sheila Kohler - The House On R. Street

Iris Murdoch - The Sea, The Sea

Annie Proulx - The Shipping News

Beryl Markham - West with the Night

 

None of these is difficult to read, however all are brilliantly written and anything but low-brow, imo.


Edited by james444 - 1/31/13 at 6:46am
post #5303 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

Female writers at best are not that great.

 

I think MF just developed an cerebral aneurysm biggrin.gif

post #5304 of 21760

Quote:

Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

I think MF just developed an cerebral aneurysm biggrin.gif

 

LOL!!!

 

I think we will probably see an epic post from MF soon!

post #5305 of 21760

When I said that female writers are not great I meant the real greatness. I didn't mean nice or just good quality work.

 

Take for example Franz Kafka. He is a milestone, the one who changes perception, a trend-setter. 

 

All your examples of contemporary female writers are good writers but they are not that special. They stand in a long row of decent writers.

post #5306 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

When I said that female writers are not great I meant the real greatness.

 

Ah, I wasn't aware that you meant the real greatness. In that case, please disregard my recommendations.

post #5307 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

I have difficulty to imagine women to be priests. There could be exceptions but generally I would say "no way". I don't believe "in progress" in the sense that as if women were not given chance and if you allow them to prove their abilities in mens' spheres ( like religion) they will be as capable or influential as men. Priests are some kind of visionaries and especially as visionaries women suck. In practical areas women can rival and even surpass men.

 

 

 

Religion as a man's sphere, women sucking as visionaries... come on, Mutabor. You're not putting any effort into your trolling anymore. It's too obvious.

 

What "abilities" do priests have that women have to prove themselves capable of, exactly? How do women fail as visionaries where men succeed, exactly? Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the role of women as priestesses, mystics, and oracles throughout history in various cultures, assuming you actually care about the subject. Or maybe stop to think about the many nuns and female saints throughout Christiandom, and ask yourself how exactly that differs from the function of a priest in acting as a spiritual proxy.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

Schopenhauer gave a good example of women in art ( paintings). They didn't have obstacles to express themselves in this category and they didn't manage to produce really outstanding painters. Female writers at best are not that great.

 

 

You can say that lately when women were given more freedom we can see quality of their work. The problem is that lately literature and art have become more personal aiming to different niches. You may not be a great writer or thinker but you will find your niche. Even pathetic writers can manage to find their readers. While in the past it was more difficult to reach out to people. You had to offer something special to be heard.

 

So the much bigger quantity of female thinkers, writers etc. which has appeared lately doesn't really say much about real quality. It is just the scale of information is much bigger and easier to access than before.

 

Yes, Schopenhauer was a notorious misogynist. He had a lot of personal issues that colored his philosophy, which is what prompted Nietzche to observe he was jealous of people who were happy and knew how to actually live life.

 

I've actually heard the painting / writing argument before. It's a flawed argument, to say the least. It assumes that because women didn't pick up canvases and ink quills and start producing masterpieces, they must be inferior. It ignores underlying social conditions like a lack of educational opportunities and the frowning upon of too much self-expression in upper class society. From an early age, women were told what to think and how to behave. They were kept in drawing rooms and told to sew and languish in obscurity. They had it drilled into their heads that they were inferior, and they largely believed it. The lower classes didn't have the luxury of leisure activities, least of all women with families to take care of. Women have always been blamed for the social injustices foisted upon them. Whether it's their fault for not being able to find the time to hone painting or their fault for not having the training as a writer when they aren't allowed out of the estate. People are all too eager to criticize women for concerning themselves primarily with honing those qualities that make them desirable wives, yet throughout the ages this was a means to a woman's survival. A woman couldn't "make a living" as an artist.

 

Great female artists like Sappho are considered exceptions. Yet a relatively small proportion of works of the ancient world survived, and attributing authorship is always difficult. Women have used pen names throughout history---again, due to social restraints---so this just compounds the problem. We're all too willing to assume a female author who writes well is really using her husband's talents, yet I have to wonder how many great male authors have had their works penned by the women in their lives.

 

When we give females the same opportunities as men, lo and behold we start seeing more female artists. Still we begrudge this. We say it's all mediocre, all the inevitable outcome of accessibility. Do you realize how relatively short the time has been since these attitudes have changed? We're talking about a single century in some parts of the world pretty much. Seems a little unfair to judge the output of that small timeframe against the entirety of recorded history. Let's see how things look 100 years from now.

 

Also I have to seriously LOL at Jane Austin being labeled "low brow fiction" by Mutabor. I don't care for her work, but she's generally recognized as one of the greatest novelists of all time. As for not recognizing the names Harper Lee and Sylvia Plath... yikes. Add Virginia Woolf to the list and check 'em out sometime. Even if you don't like them, they should be familiar to anyone well read.

 

Yeah, accessibility these days means anyone can have their stuff read by others. Mediocrity abounds. But this applies just as much to men, and I don't see it as any argument specifically against female authors.

 

Recognition doesn't automatically equate to quality. Otherwise Ayn Rand would be considered a better writer than Gogol. There are plenty of lesser known female writers like Fumiko Enchi, Susan Sontag, and Natasza Goerke who are among the best writers of the 20th century. Plenty of luminous female thinkers like Hannah Arendt, Edith Stein, Luce Irigaray, Simone Weil, Simone de Beauvoir, Catherine Malabou, Julia Kristeva, Judith Butler, etc.

 

 

 

 


Edited by MuppetFace - 1/31/13 at 7:30am
post #5308 of 21760

I think that it's dark feminist nature is talking in you, MF.

 

That is a pity because there is some potential there which might be wasted. redface.gif

post #5309 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

I think that it's dark feminist nature is talking in you, MF.

 

That is a pity because there is some potential there which might be wasted. redface.gif

 

Wow. So you're just going to disregard everything that was just posted? I'm not defending MF, or anything really, but your argument style upsets me. It's the same employed by fanatics and those who ignore facts in order to preserve their opinions.

 


 

In other news,

 

 

post #5310 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

Wow. So you're just going to disregard everything that was just posted? I'm not defending MF, or anything really, but your argument style upsets me. It's the same employed by fanatics and those who ignore facts in order to preserve their opinions.

 

No, those of MF were not facts but biased opinions. I don't want to argue because it's useless. For example the role of women in history as oracles and mystics in different cultures  is highly exaggerated by MF. 

 

Yes, I do disregard everything that she has written.


Edited by mutabor - 1/31/13 at 8:39am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2