IIT: The book every woman has (or must have) read

I've thought about books that all men should read, at least one time in their life. For example, Conan the Barbarian, The Myth of Sisyphus and Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, etc. Which books would improve your life specially if you were a woman reading it.

every man, woman, and child should read The Little Prince.

This thread title seems like a clickbait article you click when you're a woman who browses lifehacker in 2014.

>Conan the Barbarian American intellectuals.jpg

I don't care about women or their books, but I am interested in the 3 books mentioned in OP. Why should a man read these in particular? I havn't read any of them btw.

>>5290 I tried to read it but I couldn't finished it, probably because I was too old when i picked it up . >>5292 On the contrary, that's why I love it. Sometimes you have to act and leave every thought behind. If it is a joke, sorry, I'm accustomed to defending Conan against ""intelectuals"" >>5291 I didn't realize about the typo until now, kek. >>5293 Because the masculine aspects are being left behind, like some kind of useless relic, or errors. I think those books, between others I didn't named, express those values with honesty and manage to give you the will to embrace your manhood and become a better individual, besides they are awesome. The thing is, when you become obsessed with those characteristics, you slowly became a faggit who only things about ultra muscular macho men (aka Spartan soldier, homo fascist italians, jjba fandom, femboy NS, etc) No one should devote entirely to one arquetype, wich ever it is. That's why I started this thread. I think, maybe, Jung and Tarot: An Archetypal Journey by Sallie Nichols could be one candidate, because a girl friend recommended to me, but I don't know. Only well read women can answer this, imho. For this time I won't use the "tits or gtfo" protocol, so if you want to larp as a girl in a non sexual way, go ahead.

Pride and Prejudice to make the rich man fall for you.

Girls...? Girls on... my... my internets...? insert obligatory stogtfu Girls shouldn't be allowed on internets. Ideas of books: 10 tips to enhance your floozy potential to boost your instagram how to dress cute to have an abortion how to suck moar dicks Why you shoul train your daughter to twerk on tiktok ... this is a bad joke sorry

>>5313 Fresh off reddit, kiddo?

>the book every woman must have read Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, and Untamed fanfiction. I don't say this as a good thing.

The works of Sartre and Camus (this is a should, very few people have). For everyone.

Simone De Beauvoir

You don't need to tailor the books you read to your gender. People should just read what they enjoy. Truly valuable life lessons are the same for both genders. If you want my completely personal opinion, however, I'll say that most women I know are completely oblivious to the social struggles men face. It is important to be familiar with them in order to truly empathize. >>5293 You should read Thus Spoke Zarathustra if you are familiar with Nietzsche and you shouldn't if you aren't. >>5295 Strength, resilience, moral integrity, personal responsability, and desire for growth are not traits inherent or exclusive to men nor should they be promoted as such. They should be universal. The myth of the manly heroic man is from a time when a lot of social tasks were mostly gender exclusive and this is not the case nowadays.

>>5334 I agree with you, those should be universal values, but let's face it, our gender pretty much decides how we behave, and thus, what values we should embrace. Now, all mass media programs you to believe manhood is bad and womanhood is good, but that's other subject. One shouldn't completely chain values to a specific gender, but at the same time, ignoring the natural correlation is ignoring a part of oneself, and doing it intentionally is just moralistyc BS. >I'll say that most women I know are completely oblivious to the social struggles men face. It is important to be familiar with them in order to truly empathize. Yes, and I want to be better than those women, and anyone who is incapable of emphatize with the other gender, and I think reading amazing books, which resonates with the profound aspects of their psyche, would be a huge help. >The myth of the manly heroic man is from a time when a lot of social tasks were mostly gender exclusive and this is not the case nowadays. And why the tradition was formed that why? What does the sucess of this tradition, we living ""better than ever before"" in the present, means? Maybe that's the natural order of things, maybe that's the way it's meant to be done and we just tend to think otherwise because NLP. >>5330 I guess I should give a look to those books, at least to face the superficial part. Yes, i'm a elitist who feels disgust with those books, big deal.

social struggles are not endemic to men lmao, seeing that boring made up trauma in a lot of threads recently

>>5335 >our gender pretty much decides how we behave I agree, to a large extent. >natural correlation I don't see natural correlation if by natural you mean biological. I think it's a thing you pick up when you're growing up, for the most part. More on this in a bit. >And why the tradition was formed that way? It was the most logical arrangement. Food required physical strength and absence, while the offspring needs milk and shelter. It can still be tradition because tradition overstays its purpose as long it's ingrained enough (see: religion). Moral integrity is traditionally a male trait because men dictated morality. It can be advantageous for a woman to switch partners, but that puts the man at a disadvantage, so it is morally reprehensible. Meanwhile, it's fair game for men to have as many women as he can in a lot of cultures. Women could not rely on their physical strength to solve conflicts, so they would resort to lying. Lying is morally reprehensible and seen as a woman's thing, violence however was fair game (see: duels). Personal responsability also just makes sense. The man, as a provider, had both his woman and offspring as dependants. His decisions have more lives on the line and therefore more weight. >Maybe that's the natural order of things Maybe. It's not impossible, no one knows for sure. But I am skeptical of it, for the reasoning against this idea is pretty sound, while I know of no evidence to state that such behaviours are biologically inherent. I do agree that there are some very slight differences due to hormonal distinctions (for example, inclination to conflict due to testosterone) but I doubt they have enough impact to influence gender roles, and proof of that is that they have changed and keep changing. Scholarship was a man's thing, yet most women read more and are more diligent in school on average. Both male and female are now providers, while their offspring is taken care of by a third part throughout most of their lives. There's no space for unarmed violence in society, and physical strength plays no role outside of laborious jobs and sports. I wouldn't say we live in a matriarchy but women have more and more power compared to even 100 years ago. I personally believe gender roles will change drastically as we know in 1000 years or so. You don't seem ill intentioned. I wish you luck in your endeavours. >>5336 >social struggles are not endemic to men lmao If by endemic you mean exclusive or comparatively prevalent: I never even remotely implied that. >seeing that boring made up trauma in a lot of threads recently Not me.

Women still seem to flock more than men do. Why is that? Seems to be a difference in how the genders often develop personality.

>>5337 We live in a matriarchy. I won't be a b!tch about it, bc that won't solve anything, but it's the truth.

>>5338 There are some hormonal differences that are likely to cause this. Things like testosterone in men and higher levels of Oxytocin in women is going to cause behavioral differences. The effect kicks in way too early and is too universal for it to be a majority cultural thing.

Just read Stirner and be done with it

Why do Americans use linguistic term (gender) as a substitute for biological sex?

>>5353 Look up John Money. He was a "researcher" who chopped off a kids penis and fed him estrogen starting when he was only a few months old. Go figure this guy is also the reason we have abstracted the traits of biological men and women into arbitrary concepts. The term gender is meant to invalidate the biological reality of sex. That is to say that a man only exists because society says that men and women exist and are different, not because of the biological differences between men and women. Some people spend their whole lives thinking of new ways to rebel against nature. Its sickening.

>>5334 >The myth of the manly heroic man is from a time when a lot of social tasks were mostly gender exclusive and this is not the case nowadays. There has been a deliberate and intense effort from the modern zeitgeist to make women equal to men in the realms of traditionally male fields (STEM -> STEAM). Does anyone think this is actually working? This is one of those issues that even pop intellectuals like Jordan Peterson talk about.(yah I know Peterson is cringe but I mean this is like the one thing hes coherent about) >>5337 If women were by nature equal to men in traditionally masculine traits then don't you think there would be about an even number of patriarchies and matriarchies? If women are as equally gifted as men then how could a patriarchy even form in the first place? You accept that there are biological differences between the sexes. >Food required physical strength Why don't you apply the same reasoning to the mind and mental traits. This is something a lot of people cant seem to think past. You accept evolution. You even accept that there are genetic/biological differences that have arisen due to our evolution. Yet for some reason you hesitate to apply this reasoning (which you would apply to any other creature in nature) to humans. If you believe in science and evolution then let go of your ego, or your egalitarian precepts, or whatever bias you might have and treat the human brain like any other organ. An organ that is subject to the forces of natural selection. Men and women have different physical and mental traits. Though you might think this is unfair or unjust that is an opinion you are entitled to. However there is no force more powerful than nature, and to try to fight it is a fools errand. I take a page from the stoics with my thinking on this. Though you might not like it, you are chained to the world and the world is moving forward. You can either walk along and make the best of it, or be dragged along through the mud. We are who we are and we are stuck with our biological nature. I choose to accept my it and be the best my nature will allow me to be. To do otherwise would only end in suffering.

>>5337 >gender roles will change drastically as we know in 1000 years or so. In 1000 years, humans will never leave VR, so I'm not sure what role gender will have at that point. >>5353 Since the 15th century, both "sex" and "gender" have been used to describe the biological category in English, which most Americans speak. Etmyonline explains "gender"'s modern prevalence: As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.

>>5349 mention one (1) woman in a position of power

>>5431 We live in a kyriarchy. "Power" refers to a flow of potential to increase entropy. Individuals in a hierarchy or socially abstract position, might express no genuine choice. Feminine modes for social influence shape social structures which everyone else inhabits.

>>5506 Kyriarchy is a weird fringe theory that is used purely to reinvent the idea of heirarchies to match with the modern progressive zeitgeist. Radical Feminists realised that the term patriarchy risked becoming unpopular with people noticing how it was bunkum so they expanded the theory to include nebulous "intersecting oppressions" that are malleable to whatever the accepting oppressions are while allowing privileged women to hold onto their oppressed status. We live in a capitalist heirarchy and within subgroups of society there are various other forms of heirarchy, some organisations are patriarchal, some are matriarchal, some are meritocratic with varying other forms also in play.

story of O

>>5289 Frankenstein

>>5614 >story of O :-)

Sula - Toni Morrison House of Mirth - Edith Wharton Tess of the d'Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy Veronica - Mary Gaitskill

>>5289 >Conan the Barbarian, The Myth of Sisyphus and Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, etc. KEK. do americ*ns really

>>5937 Go back to kohlchan.

>>5633 After that, read a basic economics textbook. Lmao

>>5633 Not essential reading, but "Wage Labour and Capital" (1849) is a good primer. "Capital" is a long read which is best tackled by way of guided reading, e.g. David Harvey's lecture series on Capital Vol. 1 >>5943 "Read a basic economics textbook" is a dumb meme. A good introduction to economics is "Economics: A User Guide" by Ha-Joon Chang. It treats the reader as someone capable of entertaining ideas without having to necessarily accept them.

>>5943 Sure, after you read a book about communist system, you could read a book about capitalist system, that does make sense. Why lmao?

>>5943 The economic parts of Das Kapital are reasonably well respected for a book of its age. Its predominantly an examination of the capitalist mode of production and a fairly good one at that/

if you're a woman - read dworkin, no matter of your political stance or views on feminism. below is an excerpt from right wing woman, published in 1983 She will try to find the nice way to exercise intelligence. But intelligence is not ladylike. Intelligence is full of excesses. Rigorous intelligene abhors sentimentality, and women must be sentimental to value the dreadful silliness of the men around them. Morbid intelligence abhors the cheery sunlight of positive thinking and eternal sweetness; and women must be sunlight and cheery and sweet, or the woman could not bribe her way with smiles through a day. Wild intelligence abhors any narrow world; and the world of women must stay narrow, or the woman is an outlaw. No woman could be Nietzsche or Rimbaud without ending up in a whorehouse or lobotomized. Any vital intelligence has passionate questions, aggressive answers; but women cannot be explorers; there can be no Lewis or Clark of the female mind.

>>5946 >>5944 >>5945 Give me all the projection and cope, I gives me energy.

>>5944 >"Capital" is a long read which is best tackled by way of guided reading, e.g. David Harvey's lecture series on Capital Vol. 1 I've heard mixed opinions on that. David Harvey appears to be losing his marbles and doesn't seem to think Marx had a labor theory of value.

>>5943 I'd recommend this one. It's just basic enough for you to get a sense of the many different theories in the Dismal Science. It won't hurt your brain as an advanced textbook like Das Kapital might.

>women must be sunlight and cheery and sweet, or the woman could not bribe her way with smiles through a day Why do they need to bribe their way with smiles through a day? >the world of women must stay narrow, or the woman is an outlaw Maybe by outlaw you mean some sort of social outcast. I agree. Doesn't this say more about our societies? >No woman could be Nietzsche or Rimbaud without ending up in a whorehouse or lobotomized Same point as above. Perhaps there is more to the author you mention than what is apparent from what you posted. But it seems to me, again judging from what you posted, that the author has some preconceived, poorly justified ideas about the nature, capabilities and role of women in society. From what I can glean those assumptions are, I think that as time has gone on and humanity has progressed, more and more counter examples to those assumptions have arisen.

>>5954 meant for >>5947

>>5945 I don't know if you're questioning the order of the actions, but if you refer to: why reading both, when they're so different? Well, problably for the sake of having a more critical perspective (i suppose)

>>5951 I never much got that impression but I just don't know enough about David Harvey to argue otherwise. The popular recording of the lecture series is 10+ years old now so this could be a more recent thing. Certainly wouldn't hold David Harvey up as an infallible authority on Marx, just that the lecture series is very accessible (e.g. they are in 45min-1.5hour chunks, there are videos but the recordings are also available on podcasting services, etc.). If someone has specific questions to ask, the best place to go is to the source.

Every man AND every woman should read Simone de Beauvoire's "The Second Sex". That book is golden, and all issues of gender would just dissolve if everyone read and understood it.

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte How to be a Domestic Goddess by Nigella Lawson The Bible

Every woman should read catcher in the rye because it proves that they are incapable of understanding the male experience. Woman don't feel the things that Holden Caulfield feels. The most they can engage with the book is by making weird theories about his past or generic literary criticism nonsense. Once you explain this to them and they're good enough of a person they start to realize that men have more complex feelings than they are capable of.

>>5997 When I read that book at age 15 I thought Holden was a fuarrrking crybaby idiot. I still do.

>>5999 still, he is understandable to us, men. Women just can't get it.

>>6006 Not OP, but as a man, I don't find Holden understandable. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I found it boring and Holden quite annoying. So much that I fail to understand why people praise that book. I have read the book as an adult, though, that may be the reason why I found Holden annoying.

>>5289 Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre

>>5357 The sexual thrill of mutilating the innocent appears in every society and culture under a different guise. >>5947 Wonder what she thought of Ayn Rand.

Joanna Russ: The Female Man, and The Adventures of Alyx.

>>5431 sure, but you don't get to move the goalposts and say it's not *real* power when I do. https://lmgtfy.app/?q=female+political+leaders

>>6346 >sure, but you don't get to move the goalposts and say it's not *real* power when I do. Well he ought to. Women in charge is universally a disaster for everyone concerned. Women have done nothing with their right to vote except bastardize it away. They've discouraged their men away. Their "husbands" are not half as masculine as two generations ago. Their leadership qualities whenever they've gained the misfortune of having the job have been to generate ruin and death. How much wealth and prosperity did Joan of Arc spread? What about Boudicca? What about the husband murdering craze of eastern Europe? Genghis Khan did a better job and his only concerns were personal gain and revenge. Such is the track record for women being genuinely in charge of things that I'd be reluctant to leave women alone to work even the most basic of things. Let history speak for what qualities women offer for they'll save you the job of learning from the same mistake again

>>6598 >Well he ought to. ??? what does your retarded rant have to do with moving goalposts?

>>6599 There was probably a reason that a debate was started on whether women lead or merely sit at the top of a pile in a symbolic way, either through puppeteering or to reflect a general reactionary sentiment. Even if somebody remembers what the reason was I'm not aware of any books that do a good job of examining the problem. Most will just complain how unfair all of these assumed patriarchies are and then proclaim some other outlook to be "better" or more accurate.

"According to all this, the female idiocy is not only present, but also necessary, it is not only a physiological fact, but also a physiological postulate. If we want a woman who completely fulfills her maternal profession, she cannot have a male brain. If it could be made that the female faculties would be developed equally to the male ones, the mother organs would atrophy and we would have an ugly and useless hermaphrodite before us. Someone has said that nothing should be required of the female except that she be "healthy and stupid." That is roughly expressed, but there is truth in the paradox. Excessive brain activity makes the woman not only wrong, but also ill. Unfortunately, we see this every day before our eyes. If woman is to be what nature intended her to be, she must not compete with man. Modern foolish women are bad breeders and bad mothers. In the degree to which "civilization" grows, fertility decreases. The better schools become, the worse maternity beds become, the lower the milk secretion becomes, in short, the more unfit the women become." - P.J. Moebius, The Mental Inferiority of the Woman

>>5289 I've seen a lot of women suffer around me because they seem to have a fundamental belief that they're not really in control of things, and must accept whatever comes to them. Is there a book whose goal is to make you realize that you have control (and thus responsibility) over your life? Cognitive Behavioral Therapy comes to mind, but the books are more like workbooks than something you read once. And this is also with the assumptions that men should try to be more like women and women more like men, but isn't it why people marry in the first place? Why spend time working on your flaws when you could work on your talents and marry someone with the opposite profile? As for actual recommendations of books, maybe something that everyone would benefit from knowing? Nutrition, exercise, that kind of thing. The issue is that nutrition is an absolute mess, has been for the last 10 years at least, and will continue to be for a long time. Exercise is the same. So instead let's go with personal finance, everyone could benefit from some. "The Millionaire Next Door" is relatively good, and compared to others doesn't feel like a sales pitch. Or if you can read French, "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" is a great and easy book about economy. I don't know how good is the English version ("Economics in one lesson"). >>5353 Because it's the correct term. While for 90%/95%/99%/maybe even more people this will be the exact same thing, in some cases it won't. Most of the time when people say "men" and "women", they don't talk directly about biological sex, but the social categories of men and women to which people belong (that, again, for the vast majority of people are exactly the same as their biologic sex). There are also people that say that gender is completely different from sex, but as always when you hear people being in denial about biology/genetics, you can safely ignore them. Usually, it's because those people can't conceive that someone can be objectively superior to someone else, but both can still have the same moral value as human beings.

>>5431 Liz Truss the PM of UK before that we had Theresa May, Margaret Thatcher..oh and we also had the longest reigning Queen of all time which is by definition a matriarchal society. Mon-archy, Matri-archy. Its not the Victorian times. People who think we actually live in a Patriarchy need to go to Saudi Arabia and see what happens when women get uppity there.

Every woman should read the books of Andrea Dworkin, plus the S.C.U.M Manifesto.

>>5358 >Men and women have different physical and mental traits. But that doesn't mean that the other one is inferior in any way. 3+6 is different from 4+5, but they're equal.

I wanna hear the men's books now

>>5289 >Push - Sapphire it's a good book about motherhood imo, and even quite optimistic in some parts, unlike the movie which is a bizarre struggle porn with a cheesy self-help message in the end. >Slayers Original Novels Every girl should read and watch Slayers (the classic tv version), Lina is easily one of the best females characters of the 90s, she's good as Harley quinn or even as Sailor Moon, the novels are also are very good but imo the anime provides a better experience, i recommend the SNES game too >The Magic of Tidying up - Marie Kondo i never read, but everyone I've heard praise this book were woman and said their lives changed after reading it, so i put it on the list

>>8208 I think you're asking too much from literature. The type of people who benefit from things like CBT, Stoicism, or even modern self-help books are people already looking for answers in specific locations. Not exactly the type who thinks they're not in control or responsible for their life. If you're asking because of a friend you'd like to help, the best you can do is lead by example. You shouldn't take it upon yourself to change people though. I think people try too hard to change others when the best we can do to help is to be good friends/people.

>>8235 >The type of people who benefit from things like CBT kek

>>8235 All good points, thanks.

every woman should read Joan Didion. I don't know much about her fiction, but her non-fiction is incredible and makes me unafraid to be a woman and to age as one.

a good cookbook. which one ? depends on your nationality.

The Myth of Sisyphus was a horrible experience for me. Nothing like The Plague or The Stranger. The Rebel was even worse.

>>5997 May be, seems the best post here so far. However if the purpose is to make her understand men or how to be a good wife or gf it is far from perfect. A lot of explanation is needed here. >>5614 Yes, that one as well. >>7154 Kind of true as well. The only thing here is that we have too many people already, so we do not need more children.

They should start with the greeks (Sappho)

>>8638 Great! then she'll dump you because she wants to experiment with other women nice

I have not read any of the books in this thread for either gender

>>8659 have you read any books ?

The SCUM Manifesto by Solanas. Even if you disagree with her views, she proposes a sort of radicalism which is generally foreign to most feminist theories. It is good to experiment and have some exposure to it. It's controversial but so are many other books, so-

>>5289 https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ruth-Chapter-1/ https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Esther-Chapter-1/

>>8469 "excessive brain activity makes the woman not only wrong, but also ill" i'm definitely using that line at the halloween party down the block next weekend

>>8739 >A prostitute don't like her customers and since the only men she know are her customers, she draw conclusions. Hate level dwarve the KKK. If you want to read people who puke hate, just go to X. >>8220 Is an apple equal to a banana? Inferior? Our brains aren't the same and don't work the same way. The sooner we won't assume women think like men or men should be educated like women, the better.

>>5289 I'm not so concerned with what women must or have read, I'm just going to recommend works I found amusing, insightful or useful at various points in my life. In no particular order: >Greek myths, written by various authors >Konungsbók/Codex Regius >Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake >The Count of Monte Cristo >The Silmarillion >Lord of the Rings >various short stories from the Southern Gothic genre. I particularly enjoyed Faulkner and O'Connor. >Meditations on the Peaks - Evola >The Four Agreements >Can Life Prevail >Master and Margarita >the Cowboy Cookbook - Radford, Paré and Lepine >Northern Cookbook - Ellis (1977). Published by Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada >Japanese Cooking - Susan Fuller Slack >Recipes from a French Herb Garden - G. Holt >Earth, Water, Fire, Air - B. Friedlander >the Fondue Cookbook - E. Callahan >The Fountainhead >Satanic Verses (S. Rushdie) >Enchantress of Florence (S. Rushdie) >DUNC, Children of Dunc, God Emperor of Dunc (F. Herbert) >Adrian Mole and various sequels - S. Townsend >the collected works of Theodore Kaczynski, including Anti-Tech Revolution >>5338 Kaczynski might say it's simply oversocialization, but I'd say it's more of a genetic predisposition towards such oversocialization rooted in evolutionary pressures related to many of their female ancestors having to cope psychologically with most/all of the men in their tribes getting killed off during raids from rival tribes. This is an opinion derived from research and soykafposts of varying insightfulness I've read over a few decades, and the truth of the matter is probably more complicated. Popular "award-winning" authors I suggest avoiding include >Margaret Atwood >Ursula K. Leguin >Eckhart Tolle I appreciate the effort they put into cranking out works, but I just don't find the content particularly enjoyable or valuable. Other people might say otherwise. If you're Christian (which I am not) or simply interested in reading the bible, I also recommend avoiding >The Scofield Reference Bible >other copies of the bible derived from it >>5295 Which Conan works do you recommend? I've only seen the original movies.

Are.. are we gendering Books now?

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust and everything by Charlotte Brontë Emily Brontë Jane Austen Virginia Woolf William Shakespeare

Joanna Russ' The Female Man Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto

Memoirs of Fanny Hill by John Cleland

Women should read what they please. Although reading Emma Goldman (anything by her), Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg and basically anything by Ursula K Le Guin has made me feel much less alone, as a woman. >>5954 The paragraph is tongue in cheek. Dworkin was one of the most infamous feminists.

>>10463 Emma Goldman? Unusual choice.

>>5952 das kapital is neatly written, understandable. its just the size intimidating maybe but that is all. now economic theories in general you cannot get past mathematics and thats like eating bark >>10439 i think there are specific books that cater to the wish for lush, sensual and visual flirtations with words, but there are universal, timeless themes that permeate any bodily form and these are my favs, so yea i get what you mean

Jane Eyre. It's "feminist" in a way that's actually feminine.