What is a novel that would describe me women's thought process?

Women really only have an intuitive grasp for transgression, that is, for abnegation. If a man engages in the latter in order to accumulate power over others, she will be attracted to him--if he engages in it without accumulating power, he is really himself a woman and thus may sustain a friendship with her, so long as his vitriol (the heaving of responsibility upon others in the form of blame) remains centered upon persons outside the friendship. If two persons who are naturally transgressive cohabitate with one another long enough, conflict will ensue since neither is autonomous enough to take care of themselves, and will ultimately fling undue blame upon each other, instigating endless provocation. This is really why women need a man in their life, i.e., someone who can ride the turbulence of life without being destabilized. Incidentally, women will call such an independent and cool-headed man a "good" man, but only so long as she benefits from his cool-headedness. Though women recognize this virtue in a man, they do not seem to care to work towards it themselves, but admittedly we could say the same about many men; yet all this serves merely to indicate again that women have a natural proclivity for dependency and that's about it. They are not monads in the sense that they are capable of standing apart from externalities by means of obedience to a personal, self-preserving law or principle.

A man who does not engage in abnegation, who has defeated his inner impulse to deny personal responsibility for his duties, who neither complains about his circumstances, nor asks for undue reward, will at first attract women on account of his resourcefulness, who will try to draw him in either through imitation or flirtation. The latter is the attempt at seduction by the intimation of transgression, which is therefore founded upon the belief that man ultimately wants to heave off his burden and lie with woman, that is, he wants to yield to temptation. If a man refuses this temptation, he will suddenly become utterly remote to her and unreachable (and this subsequently proves that any imitation of his character on her part was merely as a means to seduce him, not on account of any virtuous character she might have independently possessed). She may then abandon the prospect or suddenly turn cold and provocative, and this is nothing more than a last attempt to draw him into anger (a form of transgression) where he is vulnerable to further abnegation (i.e., more like her), having at that point succeeded in luring him out of his moral enclave which protects him from vicious and demonic creatures such as women.

You may thank me for saving you the time of reading an entire book on the subject.

"They Got Holes Where Their Dicks Should Be" by Anita Fatcock

Attached: grape.jpg (172x187, 10K)

To the Lighthouse, but it describes thought processes in general. What *concerns* a woman is what mainly differs from what concerns a man, however. Women tend to continue along certain lines of thought (social thought) longer than men do, who very clearly devote their thinking predominantly to asocial scientific, financial, literary and pragmatic stuff (which lines of course the book does not cover). When on some social line, or when considering some memory of say some old love affair or some occurence of early childhood men are far quicker (after the briefest of considerations) to shrug their shoulders and move on to something else. In a social novel concerned predominantly with family life this renders them a little buffoon-like.

>Women tend to continue along certain lines of thought (social thought) longer than men do, who very clearly devote their thinking predominantly to asocial scientific, financial, literary and pragmatic stuff
Yes but only because women are incapable of those other modes of thought you mentioned. For instance, if Person A owns five cars including a Toyota and Person B owns one car, that car being a Toyota, we should not be surprised to find Person B driving a Toyota more often than Person A.

Don't you feel bad about yourself while writing these?

Just read anything written by a woman moron. Alternatively: take hormones for like a few months and see what that does for your thinking.

No

Furthermore, I can prove that your comment is an example of the very thing I described in my first post, i.e., that woman only understands transgression. Let me explain: I put forth a sincere exposition of my thought on the topic brought up in the OP. My arguments were the result of a continuous effort made to render intelligible a single concept out of a manifold of complex and rhapsodic experiences, which required the suppression of my own irrational tendencies--the passions, emotions, and other potential obstructions like fatigue and duties at work and so forth--over an extended period of time. Having presented the fruits of this effort, plainly and without malice, to the discussion, I am met with a response that seems to come straight out of left field--yet we shall see, as I have claimed, that it is not so unexpected, if we assume to be dealing with people to whom abnegation is the normal mode of being. You have decided to respond (the reason for which you have chosen not to disclose), with a singularly divisive comment--divisive in the sense that its purpose is seemingly to turn me against myself, rendering my arguments thereby defunct, since the very possibility of argument is founded upon a self-sincerity, a sincerity towards oneself and one's activities, without which one does not take seriously what one is saying or doing and cannot thereby imbue them with an independence of their own. Now what you ask me to do, therefore, is the very sort of abnegation I referred to in my exposition, that is, self-denial, self-trivialization. I am supposed to confess that I was really joking, or that I was secretly harboring malice towards the subject of my inquiry. In essence, you ask me to transgress against my own independence and to "feel bad about" myself and my hypothesis. It is possible that you regard my arguments as so insubstantial that, for you, they do not even merit and honest rebuttal. Yet since you have not disclosed whether or not this is the case, you evidently have no motive but to provoke me into an act of abnegation without justification, something no virtuous man would perpetrate against another sovereign. In conclude therefore that you are either a woman or a man who's mind is so unruly that your behavior bears similarity to one.

quintessentially based

More. Keep it coming.

just use your own thoughts and take away logic and honesty

>tfw no gf

JUST
FUCK
MY
SHIT
UP

Attached: 1424940011696.jpg (658x720, 49K)

Have sex

incel btfo

underrated

No one finds this funny

this sounds like what would happen if ayn rand had a blog

When I put a random phrase from your post into google the closest exact match is a passage from Mien Kampf.

Checks out.

Uh... Okay

That would be the product of a woman's thought process, not a description. Women are incapable of producing the latter.

A.E.D.

Read Sons and Lovers. I know Lawrence was mentioned already, but this one book is /thread.

women are like if you had a famous important brother, and people always hung out with you to get access to him, but you thought they really liked you. they would come over to your place and you would be like "Hey I just got this new abacus, you want to see it?" and they would always reply something like "Haha that's awesome man, hey is Mark around?"

you think you would notice this and put a stop to it, but if you spent your whole life like this you would never know the difference between having real friendship and having friendship just because people are willing to tolerate your stupid abacus interests and inane babbling so they can get to your brother. a woman is just her pussy's lamer, less popular brother.

Why do incels think they understand women?
I've never been to Peru, and I've never met anyone from Peru; given that, I don't claim to be an expert on Peru or to know anything about Peruvians. Yet kissless virgins will explain women at great length. What gives?

Anna Karenina is the correct answer. Tolstoy's depiction of Anna's thought processes is absolutely clinical in every since of the word.

they think the same way as men do. it's not that hard to understand. the only thought process difference is that any case of
>oh shit that girl is hot
is turned into
>oh shit that guy is hot
since most women are heterosexual. beyond that, they think like we do

Misogynyposters, how do you get on with your mothers? Do you all have fucked up drug-addicted family backgrounds or something? And if not, what would you say if your mother read your posts and asked you about them?

fpbp

My mother beat and abused me as a kid and I would take her fucking life if I knew I could get away with it.

Madame Bovary

cant describe something that doesnt exist

inb4 god doesnt exist

>implying your mom and other women are the same
I think you have some problems there ano.

Is that your gf?

based

Holy shit you are right

Attached: 1544726140943.png (1600x747, 624K)

What would my dog think if he could understand what I write about him?

That's a perfect comparison if I've ever seen one.

god I wish that were me

Based

Do you maybe mean thot process?

We incels are women at heart (often because of lack of male role models). Emotive, clingy, obsessed with pepsi fads (anime, Wittgenstein), poor discipline, unhygienic, dumb, poor and with no ambition. It's what makes us unattractive. But using a simple projection, it turns out you can get a fair description of women.

>WTF DUDE YOURE LITERALLY A NAZI

Attached: IMG_4936.png (219x230, 6K)

I'm reading no longer human and the shit yozo says about women is pretty spot on

Attached: 41jGCepZ4DL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (321x499, 24K)

based

>it's an incel has no idea about women, but thinks he does post

Sex is a form of transgression (in our day and age it is no less than a cult, whose dogma is accepted unconditionally). I can prove this by showing that the signs which provoke lust signify nothing but violation and, more specifically, abnegation. The attire of women, for instance, titillates precisely on account of what it is missing or threatens to unveil; i.e., what it has seemingly failed to cover appropriately or adequately, as though one were in a state of being perpetually undressed or worse. For instance, the attire might bear artificial rips, as though the wearer had just had an encounter with a wild animal, or will display an innocuous resemblance to bondage, with characteristic signs around customarily vulnerable areas such as the neck, belly, and wrists. To the lust of a man, in other words, formality and civility are only challenges, barriers, not to be respected in and of themselves, as foundations for social life free from carnality and savagery, the rule of the jungle, of barbarians. He wants to violate only what is lawful and good, in order to serve his passion. Nor is the woman innocent in all of this, for she does not, as would be appropriate, regard the prospect of wearing such clothing with horror, but readily embraces it. Sex would not even be enticing if it were not transgression, for what is it but the defilement of what is blameless and good?

What a woman spots in a man, further, is precisely what is beastly and murderous in him. There is no woman who wants a weak, servile man--and she too is looking for signs, beneath the outward show, as it were, that her man is a cunning, ruthless villain, ready at once to sever his relationship with law and order and do violence against his brother. They want the animal in man, prone to rage and frenzy, who, in a beastly fervor, with rationality forfeited to passion, will yield to lust and sensuality. This is why the woman always looks for her man at the banquet, the tavern, the arena--the places where he is most susceptible and even welcoming to telluric influences, turned away from obedience and piety, ready to give in to temptation, ready to cast off the yolk of equanimity, and all to writhe as the eyeless worm in a mire of viscous sensuality.

The cult of sex demands, for its initiation ritual, the offering of the vital fluid, which mingles with the undifferentiated collectivity, binding the initiate to the worship of a savage deity. It is nothing but the violation of one's own sovereignty in the name of violence and perpetual sacrifice.

Underrated

Have sex

>be incel
>go to prostitutes to lose virginity
>turn into drunk chad
>marry a naive loli
>loli gets NTR raepd
>NTR PTSD turns him back into incel

I suppose it wouldn't be japanese without the element of surprise cucking.

I've only had 2 serious relationships but from what I can tell this checks out

Here we see the initiate mindlessly repeat himself, muttering the name of his deity, wholly convinced that the delirium he experiences in his violent ritual is true sight and enlightenment. Yet, truthfully, his mind has absconded out of neglect, leaving nothing but the ruthless beating of the drum and the inebriation brought to his wild heart by savage shrieks and cries, drowning out the cries of the victims whose blood pours out endlessly upon the altar. He can no longer speak in complete sentences or recognize the timbre of innocence another's voice. He witnesses only the mark of his clan, his cult, and wishes only to see its stain perpetuated.

>virgin thinks his life is ontologically valid
If you don't have sex, you are incomplete as an entity, and can have nothing intelligent to say to those who are fully human. As we see from your badly written and over-emotional posts

Having sex with ugly people doesnt count, youre still trash

Have sex (even with a prostitute) is objectively good advice. Before having sex, you're hating women on basis of some memetic dogma.

Afterwards (get through few hookups/relationships), the hate is grounded in objective reality as your Disney dreams will be truly shatter: that women are not good for anything, and even the sex part is severely overrated as no meaningful connection can be ever made - save for rare occasions of compatible codependency.

>Women are not able to produce a description of the major distinctions in thought processes between men and women
Wrong
>I am unable to deduce someone's thinking from their work
Literally autistic.

Women can't produce anything at all of value, they can't even run a company without men

embarrassing

t. Has a fat latina gf

>t. Has a fat latina wife and several fat latina children
Ftfy

Such is the very thing any cult or drug user says to the uninitiated, i.e., that one is not experienced, not awake, and so forth. Yet, from any lucid perspective, uncolored by the touch of the potent substance, what is called sight by the participants of the ritual will appear as blindness, in much the same way that the boorishness of the drunk man appears to him to be unfailing charisma. The cult member recognizes nothing but the name of the substance by which he is mastered, and all else is rendered unintelligible. For this is the work of the touch of any substance upon man's mind: to inhibit the natural power of judgment which already functions at full capacity in sobriety and health.

Attached: 8CA0FB9E-137A-4F89-A1B6-49DC3CF706E4.jpg (975x1300, 115K)

That was actually a very comprehensive assessment of situations like this user. More please, I've been trying to articulate this feeling/dynamic for a long time.

>(anime, Wittgenstein)
holy kek man you got me hahahahaha

you can't name a single company women have run without men

I ate Butterfly's asshole and it was delicious

Based'n'checked

Your post has made me feel pain in my soul. Surely life can't be this black, this uncompromising?

Alice Munro's stories.

Based and wizardpilled

The user who made that post is still subjugated by sex. He is not liberated from it. He still wants to make sex and sensuality fulfilling and meaningful. Do not despair, however, since one does not have to take a side, but can discover a landscape of well-being and purpose quite outside of any relationship with carnality. One only has to discover that personal sovereignty is not discovered by betraying that very sovereignty, but by yielding to it, freeing oneself from the desire for transgression and power which characterizes all forms of abnegation.

Pitch Dark by Renata Adler
Manazuru by Hiromi Kawakami

I argue that sex is not inherently trangressional, but rather that it takes on that form through the prism of barbaric attitudes. There does exist a form of sex that is whole and congruent with the actualized self. However, because men exist in a state of conflict with themselves, sex becomes an object desire to be warped and trangressionalized. Sex is not the evil.

People who exclude themselves from desire, sexuality and love are denying their ontological nature as physical beings, and can never fully experience being alive. Pretending to be something you can never be will always lead to delusion rather than enlightenment

Holy fucking based

The twilight series to understand their emotions and The prince by Machiavelli to understand the rest.

My mother taught me misogyny.

Have you considered that not everyone here is an incel? That some people have had to deal with women their whole lives and have had multiple partners, both serious and noncommittal? Some people (myself included) are speaking from experience, and even those who dont have first hand experience are probably observant enough to pick up on some trends.

This implies that to "fully experience" being alive requires indulging in negative emotions and thought processes. An enlightened person should seek to cure himself of such things. Man can experience and enjoy sexuality and love without their lives revolving around carnal rutting.

I have heard this fable, especially among the learned, but I confess myself to be ignorant of such a conception of sex. Moreover, I find there to be no shortage of women wherever sex is professed to be a form of enlightenment, so long as it is not practiced in a common, vulgar fashion, in a manner insensitive to the delicacies to which a connoisseur of the act is privy. This is nothing but bourgeois elitism which thinks itself much more rare than it really is. Sex itself is never the object, but rather transgression. I am at a loss to conceive of sex as anything but violation and egoistic desire, and to try to save it from this through pompous vanity is only a more cunning form of the same. The idea of participating in sex, believing oneself to be free from conflictual desire, with transcendence on one’s mind, seems to me as comical as it is bizarre, as though it were a dutiful act, performed freely and spontaneously without suggestion from the God-spiting ego which seeks to usurp the sovereignty of the Almighty for itself.

>This implies that to "fully experience" being alive requires indulging in negative emotions and thought processes
Exactly so. Only a child would expect life to be one unbroken chain of pleasant thoughts and experiences.
You can't willingly confine yourself inside an emotional veal crate and tell us all you are free.
Deep down you know this is true, and nobody is fooled by your cowardice

Attached: 7e45fc9ba5a983e6e82dee7e34226e63.jpg (512x384, 53K)

Attached: 51nuOuY9hZL.jpg (326x500, 59K)

The original user addressed here--
With respect to
I believe I more than vaguely alluded to what's asserted here by simply stating that the novel did not follow certain very explicitly noted lines of thought or thinking.
If there's a war going on and what's at issue *really isn't what's at issue* then it's advisable to manipulate both offense and defense in such a way that the reality be kept in focus, and addressed, but in such language that the fantasy issue be kept in the foreground (of discourse) because otherwise no one hears, and if no one hears then one is reduced to fighting not one's enemy, but oneself.
In other words I really do believe that there's a war going on, but the fantasy issue moves neither me, nor does it *really* move (you). Youre glib but (you) are not subtle. Change that. And reconsider what's *really* at issue here.

absolutely based

It's probably unfair for me to only blame women. Friendships in general struggle in same fashion. Cause? Relationships, romantic and otherwise are grown, not found. But people no longer believe that (perhaps because of choice paralysis, perhaps for another reason...).

tl;dr: Most people are shallow, so duh, women are shallow too.