Women

kek

>on the inside

It'll be like that for any pages she's taking pictures of, she's trying to show what a deep thinker she is by dissecting this 4th grade level bullshit to pieces.

It's deranged. Useless as nothing underlined but with an added distraction.

is her account deleted ?

What book is this? It reads like some awful YA garbage targeted for women.

Diary of an Oxygen Thief. Idk why she's acting like a cunt about it since I think many reputable newspapers and book reviewers and literary publications gave this book glowing reviews.

>spelling 'manipulator' wrong

Women do that. It makes them think they've understood something.

I'm so fucking shit at spelling, lads; I type out complex words like 3 times before finally resorting to auto-correct.

I think it's because I've no one to actually read my bollocks; I'd be too scared not to put in the effort to actually memorise particular spellings if I knew someone was going to mentally judge me for them.

Idk, a word just looks wrong to me when it‘s not written right. Maybe you should read more to get more visual memory of words.

filtered by basic vocabulary; you may have an illness, check it out

>liked
> = past tense

Amazon reviews are mixed

this. what the fuck is she gaining from writing that?

not my hecking bookerinos

wouldn't you like to know

Attached: ce2875f3763542a719fe3f7e1cae1fe9.jpg (564x960, 84.51K)

lol

Anybody else buy their college books used and have this shit all over it? BRB getting my classical oxfords from college out.

>4.5/5 stars
>mixed
Absolute retard.

I think she's trying to imply that the narrator doesn't feel that way anymore. Otherwise he would've said "I like hurting girls." While this may be inherently obvious, this nuance is lost on most women. They would read that sentence "I liked hurting girls" and think the narrator still feels that way.

I actually think that she’s hoping that he has changed. Because she has to rationalise getting wet somehow.

big if true

It's an explanation for why your opinions are so bad.

I don't think I've spelled "necessarrily" correctly even once in my life

try right now w out looking anything up

>Past tense
>Loved it - He enjoyed it
Truly piercing insight

Women do. If you buy a used book, never buy it from women

Note that the post doesn’t make any sense, this is due to it being written by a woman.

Why do women do this shit?

a man can read zero pages of text in his life and be wise

>Past tense
>He enjoyed it
She's a fucking meme.

Any other male manipulator books?

Infinite Jest

Trips of bastë

God tier image

I like philosophy and thus have 'necessarily' down pat, it's everything else I struggle with.

There was a joke, I can't remember where from: 'He knew how to spell bananaana, its just he didn't know how to stop spelling it'.

It makes it seem like she is unable to intellectually process what she's reading because of the emotional content. I wonder how much sexual arousal is contributing to the confusion of her thought process. Because the book is essentially the statement of a fundamental contradiction to her understanding of the world, that a man can be loved by lots of women despite intentionally manipulating and hurting them. To a woman, men who hate women are supposed to be lonely and unhappy.
Actually, I think it's more like trying to understand something dangerous, like how men watch videos of street fights and stabbings.

Nothing about this is Yea Forums. The prose is shit. The premise is derivative. The comments are banal. And the counter reaction it is fishing to appeal to is repulsive. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves for this waste of space.

Don't worry, it's just an IQ thing

Attached: Resized_20220507_133901.jpg (1500x2000, 950.59K)

Attached: Resized_20220507_133915.jpg (1500x2000, 249.3K)

Attached: Resized_20220507_134139.jpg (1350x1800, 129.48K)

>Loved it
>He enjoyed it
this is huge history happening, isn't it?
it's bigger than that, chris, it's large

revolting.

I just write !, !!, ?, ??, !?, and ?! on important points in the margins, then re-read just the marked passages when I'm finished. If I try to make "notes" I never understand what they mean when I come back to them, and it wastes time and breaks up the flow to write notes that will actually make sense later.

They've no inner mental process where they actually contemplate or integrate what they're reading, so in order to feel like they're doing something they just squiggle and highlight because that's what they were praised for doing in high school and their shitty general education literature courses at X State University. In the most puerile way possible, it's a declaration: "Look! I am engaging with the text!"

>I really enjoyed it.

>He enjoyed it.

Attached: E1wajy2WUAMOQLT.png (800x800, 154.64K)

i'll highlight things i find relevant to one of my little pet theses if i'm reading an academic text. no desire or need to mark up fiction this heavily.

i keep a separate composition book where i take note of words i only have a loose sense of definition for - mostly because the act of writing a definition solidifies it in my memory.

What in God's name is a male manipulator?

A woman who is really good at giving head

shameless bastardization of a norm joke
have a word with yourself mate

All of women's problems and all of the world's problems with women can be summed up by Toynbee's dynamic of "challenge and response." He posited that civilizations thrive as they rise to meet successive challenges that are dangerous enough to need overcoming, but not so dangerous that they crush the fledgling civilization entirely. Civilizations grow to be great through a steady ramping up of stakes and difficulties leading to new and higher syntheses, what Hegel (with more rigidity) called the movement of negation followed by negation of the negation.

This logic applies to human beings just as well as to civilizations. Character develops through successive syntheses or integrations of initially novel situations confronted as problems. People grow by discovering wisdom latent in their confrontations and conflicts with the world around them, which wisdom becomes part of their character and helps them confront more complex situations. "Wisdom" is not just knowledge, the word suggests a vertical dimension of integration and transformation, it suggests growth and not mere accumulation. Someone with wisdom is more than the sum of his parts.

Men have continuously evolved tens if not hundreds of thousands of years worth of unconscious practices, discourses, and institutions that select for the growth of character. Disdain for men who lack character or who have no will to the development of character, and fear of being a man like that, despite being an acquired instinct, is just as instinctive de facto as the instinct to eat or copulate, and it is just as subtly interwoven with all other aspects of male behavior, culture, society, and politics.

Women have similar biological instincts, but they have either no innate will to character, or their innate sense of character is so different as to be unrecognizable. They also have no continuously evolved tradition or complex of traditions promoting and selecting for the development of character. Worst of all, huge sectors of the complex of masculine character development are interwoven with practices and discourses founded in objectifying women, e.g. by treating them as the rewards for being a highly developed, bold, or otherwise impressive man. This objectification also dovetails tragically all too well with the biological instinct of women to desire being a superior object of desire (as opposed to admiration).

The most women can do in this situation is to take on and try to participate in aspects of the male culture of character formation, which is not only form-fitted to men through thousands of years of evolution but began by being form-fitted to innate male instincts, which as I said probably differ fundamentally from female innate conceptions of character.

The result of all this is that women come to maturity only pseudo-morphologically, in a fundamentally male society, constituted continuously over thousands of years by and for men, that tells them they are "people" (men), and thus incites them to develop character like all "people" should, while half-consciously suspecting that they can't succeed, because they're not men; while also secretly not wanting them to succeed or not caring if they do, because it prefers to see them as objects (rewards and status symbols for successful men); while also feeling guilty about the former suspicions and desires, and thus doublethinking even harder de iure that "women are just as good as men!" while continuing to see women as de facto incompetents. The same gauntlet of challenges (embedded in cultures, discourses, and practices) is presented to them, as to all men as a matter of course, but for women the pitch is queered from the start. They are crushed by the normal male sequence of formalized challenges and expected responses and overcomings, and as they fall behind it becomes easier to fall behind and more expected that they will continue falling behind.

Women respond to this by living in the margins and gaps created by inconsistent male exhortations, desires, and doublethink. As they fail to run the same gauntlet of self-actualization and self-discovery expected of even mediocre men, they pragmatically "lean on" male desire and male condescension (driven by both pity and sublimated desire), thus reifying and justifying their status as objects and incompetents; this further enervates them and makes it exponentially easier for them to fall off the gauntlet of character development altogether, which almost all of them do.

Simone de Beauvoir gestures to this early in The Second Sex when she says that boys at a certain age are told to stop being crybabies, and this sudden responsibility for the respect one receives (respect is no longer given but earned, and can be lost) is initially felt as a shock, but that shock is then integrated and the boy gradually becomes a man. But girls are permitted to remain frivolous, weak, and stupid for far longer, and only conditioned to stop insofar as it negatively impacts their "acceptability," which is not character, and "attractiveness," which is entirely incidental to character; men regard men whose renown or success relies on their physical attractiveness as effete and "feminine," which itself indicates how the essence of femininity is perceived (naturally "spoiled" with gifts, but passive and weak, like an oriental monarch). This is what Mary Wollstonecraft refers to when she says:

>Taught from their infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and, roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adore its prison. Men have various employments and pursuits which engage their attention, and give a character to the opening mind; but women, confined to one, and having their thoughts constantly directed to the most insignificant part of themselves, seldom extend their views beyond the triumph of the hour.
>The human character has ever been formed by the employments the individual, or class, pursues; and if the faculties are not sharpened by necessity, they must remain obtuse. The argument may fairly be extended to women; for, seldom occupied by serious business, the pursuit of pleasure gives that insignificancy to their character which renders the society of the great so insipid. The same want of firmness, produced by a similar cause, forces them both to fly from themselves to noisy pleasures, and artificial passions, till vanity takes place of every social affection, and the characteristics of humanity can scarcely be discerned.
>Mankind, including every description, wish to be loved and respected for something; and the common herd will always take the nearest road to the completion of their wishes. The respect paid to wealth and beauty is the most certain, and unequivocal; and, of course, will always attract the vulgar eye of common minds. Abilities and virtues are absolutely necessary to raise men from the middle rank of life into notice ... Men have thus ... an opportunity of exerting themselves with dignity, and of rising by the exertions which really improve a rational creature; but the whole female sex are, till their character is formed, in the same condition as the rich: for they are born ... with certain sexual privileges, and whilst they are gratuitously granted them, few will ever think of works of supererogation ...

The same sentiment is expressed much more polemically and bitterly (and thus even more honestly) by Esther Vilar:
>In general, a woman ... opt for physical well-being, a place to breed, and an opportunity to indulge unhindered in her breeding habits. It is also a fact that potential left to stagnate will atrophy. Women do not use their mental capacity: they deliberately let it disintegrate. Why do women not make use of their intellectual potential? For the simple reason that they do not need to. It is not essential for their survival. Theoretically it is possible for a beautiful woman to have less intelligence than a chimpanzee and still be considered an acceptable member of society. By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given intervals.

None of this is present in feminist discourse, which is really not feminist at all, but a reaction to the post-feminist complex of male objectification of women and condescension toward women, both of which stem partly from male sexual desire (condescension is flattery which may lead to copulation), but even more significantly from sublimated confusion on the part of men as to why women are so lazy, weak, and incompetent.

Of course, all these structures and dynamics are dialectically interwoven and have evolutionary and morphological histories of their own, remaining synchronically (structurally) stable as they are recapitulated diachronically by individuals acting on their desires within narrow social and cultural contexts.

Once you have a dialectical view of the totality, you can see it playing itself out, ramifying and reifying itself, just under the surface of any social situation. Women not knowing how to read books is simply a subset of the more general problem that they don't know how to take any hobby or interest seriously, because they weren't able to "ratchet up" the hierarchy of typical male character formation by learning to receive criticism / overcome criticism, by degrees, until they form healthy behaviors like elitism, gatekeeping, the admiration of one's superiors, the ability to balance the hazing of neophytes with gentle mentorship, the manful desire to overcome the hazing process and "fit in" (not just "be accepted"), etc.

As women failed to do this across a variety of domains, they tended toward less structured feminine domains, which allowed them to stagnate and eventually atrophy further, which made them tend toward less structured feminine domains, etc., until nothing was left but a mushy blob of feelings and desires, with a veneer of vague feminist slogans about women being equal to men.

Invoking the slogans is painful because they obviously make no sense, and on some deep level awareness of this can never be completely effaced. But invoking them is simultaneously necessary, for cajoling men to make special exceptions and let women into spaces they haven't earned entry into (as a man would have to), and pleasurable in a roundabout way, i.e. insofar as it brings petty social advantages (unearned self-esteem).

On an unconscious level, women feel like children among adults, and men see women as children among adults. This was only incensed by repressing it with state propaganda and late liberalism's "false consciousness" and lack of self-confidence. As the propaganda becomes more brittle and less effective by becoming the orthodoxy of a visibly decrepit, desperate oligarchy, and as illiberalism prepares to "slay the father" of late liberalism after decades of slow but steady waxing, there are exponentially more and more opportunities for venting the tension caused by this cognitive dissonance.