Girls and music/art/literature

[Mango IngawayParticipant 2264]

Has any woman ever been talented at creating music(or even anything?)?Well it seems like no in the vast majority of cases(with some really rare exceptions). I’ve seen some women playing in orchestras, studying music sheets by heart, other than that, I never saw even ONE female being a really good jazz/rock/whatever  guitarist/drummer/bassist, etc… They may play what someone else wrote(without any feeling, most often), but they never create good music it seems.
If you take a look at the average crappy boys band’s live show, guess what, vaaast majority of chicks at the concert,then go to a prog metal, jazz fusion,jazz concert,it’s usually a friggin sausage fest. All the stuff my female classmates listen too is the same generic crappy stuff that sounds bland as f~~~.
And those t~~~s who play the guitar and sing with their scratching voice,really? They all sound the same, it’s like someone copy/pasted them!
There was one of these in my high school graduation ceremony, hell people were retarded enough to stand up and applaud, what a joke.She played some song any retard could play, singed like a dying goose, needless to say I didn’t stand up nor applaud, you’d have seen people’s faces. This brings me to my second point, some chick looked at me and said “Don’t be so mean!”
Women trying to bring men down to their level: this is when I light a fuse. “Don’t be so mean?” Her song was s~~~! I will not clap for a s~~~ song, end of story. Want me to clap? Get some talent, there you go, problem solved. It was already the same when  I was 17 and our teacher was teaching us how to write an essay. Dang c~~~s were whining about the teacher being “too harsh” with the marks. Honey, learn how to write and stfu. I always got around 80% writing these essays the day before it was due, without even making a draft in the first place,then this bitch starts to complain that she got a 35% even though she started the week before, I’ll never know if she was serious, I hope not, but she probably was. I guess that since an essay requires argumentation, clarity of thought and basically a working brain, her poor brain couldn’t cope with it. Anything other than “muh feelingz” as an argumentation were somehow foreign to their brains. Needless to say, pretty much all chicks in class had s~~~ marks (even those who wanted to make “literary-type” studies, good luck with that hun…) And the best marks were always given to me and some other dudes who were also beasts in math and science( not me for the science part, I’m not too bad at it, I’m just more into “written stuff”).
Obviously some chick pulled out the “muhsogineh” card after a while, because girls had the tendency to have bad grades in his class. Even though in a few occasions there was a girl in my class who had really good grades on her essays, which goes to prove that if you delivered, he gave you the marks you deserved, end of story, no need for drama.

Can’t be that chicks suck at something on average right? Women sucking at something is muhsogineh, obviously!

It is a common failing of childhood to think that if one makes a hero out of a demon the demon will be satisfied.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

Do you wanna know why all female singers sound the same? It’s because music is a business. They need to sell albums. The singers don’t write the music and barely sing it in a super pro studio that can even fix flat or sharp notes. All the musicians are the same ones that play on all the albums, studio musicians, and all male.

So, like iPhones, all the music starts to sound the same.

Let’s list the top most talented women in music, art, literature, philosophy, physics, chemistry you name, I’d like to see it.

Yeah there are a few women who nearly achieved what men can but we over appreciate them to make women appear more able.

I know it sounds sexist but reality shows that women are just not talented in music, art or literature. They are only talented at abusing social power.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[HimeoParticipant 471]

To be fair: Women can do anything.

The thing is….

Most of them DON’T DO ANYTHING.

This is true in every area of achievement and performance. Professional athletes? Outside of female only sports, almost universally male.

“But, but!” a white knight or feminist sputters, “Men have innate physical advantages.”

Then what about NASCAR or e-sports? Physical abilities have little to no impact on these areas of competition.

Danica Patrick? She’s never won a race.

Tossgirl? She lost to Idra then cried. Ten percent of video game players are female. The number of female pro gamers across all f~~~ing games I can count on one hand.

How about professional Poker players? Being physically strong must be a huge advantage in a card game. But can you name a female professional Poker Player that won a major tournament?

We celebrate Marie Curie for her work. But she had a partner we never hear much about. Her husband.

BUT THEY F~~~ING DON’T.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

I think, as Larry Summer stated at his big lecture that men are just off the wall more intelligent than the vast majority of even the smartest women.

On Jan. 14, 2005, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers unwittingly brought the simmering debate about women’s representation in science careers to a full boil. In a keynote speech at a conference on diversity, Summers hypothesized that the shortage of women in certain disciplines could be explained by innate differences in mathematical ability. “There is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means—which can be debated—there is a difference in the standard deviation and variability of a male and female population,” he said. Thus, even if the average abilities of men and women were the same, there would be more men than women at the elite levels of mathematical ability—and also, though Summers didn’t say this, at the lowest levels as well.

He was promptly fired as president of Harvard by a feminist cabal.

So no, women cannot do advanced subjects as well as men no matter how hard they try.

It’s like a monkey trying to fly. Ain’t gonna happen. If it weren’t for men we’d still be huddling in caves. I’m not bragging but that’s the truth of the matter.

That’s why, with all their leisure time, women have never come up with anything.

What concerns me is that we will force good men out of STEM and give away our technical superiority to guest workers. We’ve already decomissioned NASA and a lot of cancer research.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

The only way things will get done and progress made from now on is the same way things always got done.BY MEN GETTING TOGETHER AND DOING THEM.Because most of women’s accomplishments are mediocre.

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[KingOfTheSeaParticipant 1270]

Himeo wrote:

  BUT THEY F~~~ING DON’T.

Yeah, that’s it in a nutshell. That’s why there’s legions of fan groups bitching about how women aren’t represented in pop culture, but how many of them are applying themselves to the development and creation of their art? The worst is when they want people hired just BECAUSE they’re women despite the fact that the product they’re creating is inferior to all of the men in the field. I see this all the time in comics; fan girls complain because the staff of DC and Marvel are predominately male, but ask them who they’d like published and they’ll point to Tumblr artists whose work is either too stylized or not developed enough and their portfolio is all anti-male femtrash.

[JjParticipant 178]

A woman composer is like a dog standing on it’s hind legs… it doesn’t do it very well.. but you are surprised to see it done at all!

ludwig van beethoven~

[KeymasterKeymaster]

“Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they (women) any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something.

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective.”

– Schopenhauer “On Women” c.1865

Pretty uncanny, isn’t it.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[JjParticipant 178]

Keymaster wrote:

“Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they (women) any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing. This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective.”
<h4>- Schopenhauer “On Women” c.1865</h4>
Pretty uncanny, isn’t it.

When Arthur wrote this the music at the time shifted to popular music for the masses ie. “women”, frivolous operas popped up everywhere. Also most households had a piano. When I fist read his study on women I was shocked… not much has changed lol and history the way I was indirectly taught was wrong.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

I have seen how women pretend to be into things like yoga, meditation, but when they start to go on about “in depth” subject matter, you can tell they are faking it. The sex that says they prefer the “process instead of the outcome” or the “journey more than the destination” is really trying to too hard to seem interesting.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[JjParticipant 178]

Keymaster wrote:

I have seen how women pretend to be into things like yoga, meditation, but when they start to go on about “in depth” subject matter, you can tell they are faking it. The sex that says they prefer the “process instead of the outcome” or the “journey more than the destination” is really trying to too hard to seem interesting.

I agree and have mentioned this a few times on this site; after the paragraph you posted Schopenhauer acknowledges the reason women cannot focus on the process is their inability to delay gratification. The biggest meditation trap is to only* see the power in emptiness; the process is what matters, without it you are just acting a part and the outcome never measures up.  Aka a shiny candy wrapper with a piece of s~~~ inside.

[harpo-my-“SON”Participant 2410]

This will never change, for even the small percentage of women with any real talent fall well short of the mastery that men have achieved.

I will write and record my music and books with no expectation of any monetary gain and fame is something I have no interest in while I live. I would love it if my grandchildren took my intellectual property and made a fortune publishing it. Fame after I am dead could not effect my life the way it would now. I shall be as prolific as time permits. meanwhile today’s famous women will be showing the best that they can come up with for a valuable skill.

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.

[JjParticipant 178]

harpo-my-“SON” wrote:

This will never change, for even the small percentage of women with any real talent fall well short of the mastery that men have achieved. I will write and record my music and books with no expectation of any monetary gain and fame is something I have no interest in while I live. I would love it if my grandchildren took my intellectual property and made a fortune publishing it. Fame after I am dead could not effect my life the way it would now. I shall be as prolific as time permits. meanwhile today’s famous women will be showing the best that they can come up with for a valuable skill.

There have been many many men who didn’t gain notoriety until after they died, and their content was masterful. You got that right HarpoMason, a man’s “will” is something a woman most likely will never accomplish to that of a man.

[Author]

Posts