OP:<\/p>\n
“I’ve been pondering. Why have so few significant
\nfemale writers been produced (or auteurs for that matter)?<\/p>\n
Visual media is overflowing with female talent.
\nHowever, behind the scenes where looks bear no
\nweight, women are hardly seen.<\/p>\n
(An interesting side note: Every single song from
\nfemale singers revolves around men\/love)”<\/p>\n
Cool guy:<\/p>\n
because<\/p>\n
http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexual_capital<\/p>\n
Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive?
\nhttp:\/\/www.csom.umn.edu\/assets\/71520.pdf<\/p>\n
Sexual Economics: Sex as a Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions
\nhttp:\/\/www.csom.umn.edu\/Assets\/71503.pdf<\/p>\n
Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
\nhttp:\/\/www.femininebeauty info\/suppression.pdf<\/p>\n
Female polygyny\/hypergamy
\nhttp:\/\/www.nber.org\/public_html\/confer\/2008\/si2008\/EFABG\/saint-paul.pdf
\nhttp:\/\/www.econ.washington.edu\/user\/erose\/hypergamy_v2a_paper.pdf
\nhttp:\/\/www.plosgenetics.org\/article\/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000202
\nhttp:\/\/www.jstor.org\/pss\/2743334
\nhttp:\/\/www.nature.com\/ng\/journal\/v41\/n1\/abs\/ng0109-8.html<\/p>\n
In the history of mankind as a species, some hundreds of thousands of years, 40% of men have successfully passed their genes to future generations, whereas 80% of women did. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. This is statistical, scientific, genetic proof that women function as sexual selectors, and men evolved risk-taking and ambition behaviours to compete for mating rights. The study was conducted by Michael F. Hammer. A lecture on the implications:
\nhttp:\/\/www.psy.fsu.edu\/~baumeistertice\/goodaboutmen.htm<\/p>\n
Esther Vilar’s seminal work on the concept that women enjoy a parasitic relationship with men.
\nhttp:\/\/www.naturalthinker.net\/trl\/texts\/Vilar,Esther\/ManipulatedMan.html The text itself.
\nhttp:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Esther_Vilar&oldid=442296393 Synopsis.
\nhttp:\/\/www.theabsolute.net\/misogyny\/vilar.html A preview.<\/p>\n
Female characters are defined more by their passive attributes and their emotional responses; male characters more by their actions. This is why male protagonists are preferred in fiction, by both women and men.
\nhttp:\/\/www.onfiction.ca\/2011\/02\/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html<\/p>\n
Culture sees men as expendable blank slates, whose self-sufficiency is their own responsibility, and who must prove themselves worthy of accolade or interest. Conversely, women are inherently valuable, but typically function as inert commodities or motivation for male actors. The TVtropes links serve as quantitative evidence that this basic dichotomy proliferates the culture, to the point that it can be casually and humorously catalogued.
\nhttp:\/\/tvtropes.org\/pmwiki\/pmwiki.php\/Main\/GenderDynamicsIndex
\nhttp:\/\/tvtropes.org\/pmwiki\/pmwiki.php\/Main\/MenAreTheExpendableGender<\/p>\n
“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,- 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. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. 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.”
\nCharles Darwin<\/p>\n
Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.”<\/p>\n
Im not sure if the entire wall of text above is from the same person. It is compiled from several different posts. Anyway, i agree with most of it. I dont agree with the extreme misogynism in the last part. The Darwin quote is cool. I checked it, it seems legit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
OP: “I’ve been pondering. Why have so few significant female writers been produced (or auteurs for that matter)? Visual media is overflowing with female talent. However, behind the scenes where looks bear no weight, women are hardly seen. (An interesting side note: Every single song from female singers revolves around men\/love)” Cool guy: because http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sexual_capital […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1850],"tags":[1556,1626,1880,1627],"class_list":["post-2777","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-feminismequality","tag-different","tag-men","tag-sexism","tag-women","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2777","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2777"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2777\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2779,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2777\/revisions\/2779"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}