Literacy in men is on the decline and everybody knows why. (a high effort thread)

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

Yeah but you have to agree that in order for them to be classics the large majority must find them good. the same way the large majority thinks that they learned something from them.

The large majority are retarded

I wonder if some years down the line there will be “classic” video games viewed similarly to classic novels.

Video games often have philosophical undertones just as fiction books do.

Games and fiction books are very similar I think. Especially games like chess, which are viewed much more favorably than the average video game or some reason. Chess might even be viewed more positively than reading fiction books.

 

[fr0st]

The large majority are retarded

I wonder if some years down the line there will be “classic” video games viewed similarly to classic novels.

Video games often have philosophical undertones just as fiction books do.

Games and fiction books are very similar I think. Especially games like chess, which are viewed much more favorably than the average video game or some reason.

A lot of non fiction authors enjoy fiction. also i think its dishonest to say the majority of people are retarded if that were the case the average iq would be in the 90-95s. Both art and science are important thats why there are museums for both.

 

[Krisis]

I'm writing a pretty lengthy response to this, so just a heads up. Feel free to ignore or skim through it; I'm mostly writing it for me anyway.

 

[fr0st]

I'm writing a pretty lengthy response to this, so just a heads up. Feel free to ignore or skim through it; I'm mostly writing it for me anyway.

Alright.

 

[Mythicos]

Cant wait for faggots to type "DNR" and literally prove my point.

dnr nigger (I read a thread about how to be a perfect greycel so I'm doing as advised)

 

[fr0st]

dnr nigger (I read a thread about how to be a perfect greycel so I'm doing as advised)

you're doing a great job dont worry.

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

A lot of non fiction authors enjoy fiction. also i think it’s dishonest to say the majority of people are retarded if that were the case the average iq would be in the 90-95s. Both art and science are important thats why there are museums for both.

The average iq is about 100 which is close enough to 90-95
And anyways even if the average iq was 110 I would still call them retarded
Retarded is basically just a synonym for stupid in this context
And I think most 110 iq people are stupid.
You can have a high iq and still be stupid
Most college students have a higher than average iq but I think most of them are retarded

Real art is skibidi toilet and beautiful architecture and aesthetic games. Fiction books are not art. Or at least they are not good art. Good art does not have to rely on “being art” to justify their existence.

 

[Mythicos]

you're doing a great job dont worry.

Thanks boyo. But a good thread I bookmarked it and will read it when I feel better

 

[fr0st]

The average iq is about 100 which is close enough to 90-95
And anyways even if the average iq was 110 I would still call them retarded
Retarded is basically just a synonym for stupid in this context
And I think most 110 iq people are stupid.
You can have a high iq and still be stupid
Most college students have a higher than average iq but I think most of them are retarded

Real art is skibidi toilet and beautiful architecture and games. Fiction books are not art. Or at least they are not good art. Good art does not have to rely on “being art” to justify their existence.

Maybe i guess we can just leave it at this. agree to disagree again.

 

[fr0st]

Thanks boyo. But a good thread I bookmarked it and will read it when I feel better

thank u bhai

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

The average iq is about 100 which is close enough to 90-95
And anyways even if the average iq was 110 I would still call them retarded
Retarded is basically just a synonym for stupid in this context
And I think most 110 iq people are stupid.
You can have a high iq and still be stupid
Most college students have a higher than average iq but I think most of them are retarded

Real art is skibidi toilet and beautiful architecture and aesthetic games. Fiction books are not art. Or at least they are not good art. Good art does not have to rely on “being art” to justify their existence.

Well actually nvm, a really good fiction book can be art in that is is enjoyable to read. I don’t think I’ve ever come across a book good enough that I would call it art but I’m sure it exists.

But it’s just that, art. Not something overly productive or educational. Very similar to a high quality video game

I’m fine with books being in a museum or whatever but I don’t think we should be forced to read them, just as I don’t think we should be forced to play video games
It’s so insane to me that fiction books are required reading in high school for 8 semesters. Imagine 8 semesters of video games class

 

[fr0st]

Well actually nvm, a really good fiction book can be art in that is is enjoyable to read. I don’t think I’ve ever come across a book good enough that I would call it art but I’m sure it exists.

But it’s just that, art. Not something overly productive or educational. Very similar to a high quality video game

I’m fine with books being in a museum or whatever but I don’t think we should be forced to read them, just as I don’t think we should be forced to play video games
It’s so insane to me that fiction books are required reading in high school for 8 semesters. Imagine 8 semesters of video games class

I think the fiction is moreso a way to build reading habits. like when you're a kid and you read the lord of the rings and from there if you like reading you begin to read nonfiction.

 

[voluptuousness]

Well actually nvm, a really good fiction book can be art in that is is enjoyable to read. I don’t think I’ve ever come across a book good enough that I would call it art but I’m sure it exists.

But it’s just that, art. Not something overly productive or educational. Very similar to a high quality video game

I’m fine with books being in a museum or whatever but I don’t think we should be forced to read them, just as I don’t think we should be forced to play video games
It’s so insane to me that fiction books are required reading in high school for 8 semesters. Imagine 8 semesters of video games class

just say you cannot read its ok

 

[fr0st]

I think the fiction is moreso a way to build reading habits. like when you're a kid and you read the lord of the rings and from there if you like reading you begin to read nonfiction.

Personally, this is how I began to read I grew up in a reading household and from me reading fiction I got interested in nonfiction (this is an anecdote so take it with a grain of salt obviously)

 

[NORDEN SLAVORUM]

Well whenever they make you read in schools 99% of the it is some LGBTQIA+ black history niggerslop

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

I think the fiction is moreso a way to build reading habits. like when you're a kid and you read the lord of the rings and from there if you like reading you begin to read nonfiction.

Yeah I think when ur a kid it's good to read fiction, at least until your very proficient

I’m mainly criticizing middle school and afterwards
8 years of forced reading

Sometimes it even goes into college, I’m forced to take a retarded ethics class and the teacher is making me read actual garbage

 

[fr0st]

Yeah I think when ur a kid it's good to read fiction, at least until your very proficient

I’m mainly criticizing middle school and afterwards
8 years of forced reading

Sometimes it even goes into college, I’m forced to take a retarded ethics class and the teacher is making me read actual garbage

Also, I think fiction is good to get a grasp on a good narrative. I know that I started to be able to critique stories after reading a lot of fiction because after a while you kind of get a hold of how a narrative is structured. Plus I think for middle schoolers its easier to read fiction than nonfiction. So again its probably meant as an entryway into literary arts the same you gotta take a class in art.

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

Personally, this is how I began to read I grew up in a reading household and from me reading fiction I got interested in nonfiction (this is an anecdote so take it with a grain of salt obviously)

Yeah I read a lot of fiction when I was a kid. My parents didn’t let me have video games so I just read all day. During dinner I would often bring my book to the table and read while eating

After a certain amount of reading it wasn’t really beneficial anymore. At that point should have started reading nonfiction or learning how to code or something but I was a dumbass so I just kept reading slop.
Maybe if if my parents had given me adderal and forced me to read nonfiction only…

 

[fr0st]

Well whenever they make you read in schools 99% of the it is some LGBTQIA+ black history niggerslop

Yeah that and native american shit

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

Also, I think fiction is good to get a grasp on a good narrative. I know that I started to be able to critique stories after reading a lot of fiction because after a while you kind of get a hold of how a narrative is structured. Plus I think for middle schoolers its easier to read fiction than nonfiction. So again its probably meant as an entryway into literary arts the same you gotta take a class in art.

Yeah but I think it should end at elementary school, or middle school if the child is partially slow

 

[fr0st]

Yeah I read a lot of fiction when I was a kid. My parents didn’t let me have video games so I just read all day. During dinner I would often bring my book to the table and read while eating

After a certain amount of reading it wasn’t really beneficial anymore. At that point should have started reading nonfiction or learning how to code or something but I was a dumbass so I just kept reading slop.
Maybe if if my parents had given me adderal and forced me to read nonfiction only…

A heavy dose of ritalin and nonfiction is the best

 

[Krisis]

I must commend you for taking the time and energy to make a high-effort post, especially since it must have required a great deal of courage given what's come to be expected from this forum. Don't feel hesitant about making more if the desire strikes because I love reading serious posts to which which some actual thought was dedicated.

That being said, I do not agree with your central point. And since you took the time to write all of this out, I'll take some in return to respond.

Within a few years, men's reading habits have dropped tremendously. This is in part due to the publishers, yes but it's also the fault of men for allowing it to happen

I don't think blaming men is a satisfying direction to take in trying to address the problem. I mean, sure, men aren't to be completely absolved of responsibility, but I think how boys are raised compared to girls carries more weight here. That being said, people in general don't read as much anymore, which surely has a lot to do with attention span, and how much new competition books have now with regards to holding people's attention. Therefore, leaving out the advent of social media and the internet in general is a grave error in this discussion, and that's not not even touching on music, which has never been easier to enjoy until now. And this leads us to your main point, which I fundamentally disagree with.

Men's habits of reading fiction have gone from 35.1 percent in 2012 to just 27.7 percent in 2022 and obviously, you can infer that it must have gone down even more since then. Now if you're wondering why that is it's pretty simple. We only make books for women.

The lack of books being written by men and for men is not a cause of the problem but a symptom; it's a consequence. Why would there be more books being written for men if men don't read?

Take the New York Times best-seller list. Almost all of them are written for women. They are love stories consisting of a woman protagonist "romancing" a man now women will say "Ooh what the matter with that women read too you incel!" well yes but at this rate men get disillusioned with reading due to the simple fact of there's nothing for them.

There's plenty of books being written for men. They're just not as popular because men don't read. Men don't read, which therefore means that even books with a male audience in mind are inherently fighting an uphill battle and will suffer the consequences.

So why is it that publishers don't put out books for men? Well, the simple answer is you guessed it DEI. As much as I hate that word it is literally the cause of all of these problems. Publishers are looking for the next "feminist POC author speaking the truth" as opposed to a genuinely talented author regardless of race or gender. If you are a non-ethnic man and want to publish a book it's nearly impossible

The same issue arises here. Books written by POC and women don't get pushed at the expense of books written by white people and men. Perhaps there may an attempt at doing this, but books today are still predominantly written by white people. That's just a fact, and this is especially true as far is fiction is concerned, which is part of the reason why books written by POC and women get pushed and stand out more; they're rare and white people perceive reading about marginalized groups as being novel and interesting in and of itself (there's a whole discussion to be had about this alone).

When in reality by pointing out that there is a woman who achieved something impressive you are inadvertently saying that it's uncommon for women to be smart or talented writers

I'm going to skip this tangent about intelligence since I generally agree.

If you search "books" on TikTok you will one hundred percent see some fat whore with thick oval glasses rating a "spice book" Books have become synonymous with smut if you ask a girl about the latest book she read she will most likely tell you about the latest "spicy" novel that she got from booktok

Once again, this is not a cause of the problem, but a symptom. The books that are popular are popular because they cater to the audience that's available for them.

Also, I believe this example you bring up about TikTok actually has more to do with the general decline of literacy as opposed to looking at it from a gendered perspective. That is to say, the books that are being read by women, who are prized as being bigger readers than men, aren't even particularly valuable. And I don't think that this is specific to our current dopaminergic frenzy of a period we're all suffering through.

Long are the days of insightful books such as "Metamorphosis" or "war and Peace" No we have entered the dawn of porn and surface-level gender politics.

Take a look at the past; yes, people back then were leaps and bounds more literate than now, but the most popular books in their day were not necessarily sophisticated ones like War and Peace. I don't have the statistics for that specific example, but popular books back then were likely of a relative kind of superficiality and simplicity to what soars in popularity today; the standards have just changed, which means what I like to call "junk food" fiction existed back then but was far superior to the popular garbage you describe in the above paragraph, which is due to the general decline in literacy.

Also, back on this specific point of the decline in male readers being due to the lack of male writers and books, even with books that do fulfill these requirements, women read them to a comparative degree, if not more--because women read more. Once again, this is a symptom not a cause.

Moreover, nonfiction has taken a drastic decline in quality over the years. The most popular nonfiction books as of now are "the anxious generation" (written about phone-based life) and "the house of my mother" which hilariously is about a fucking Youtuber kid who lived through a family channel (yes that's real look the book up) and the JFK conspiracy. Written by the authors who made the "nazi conspiracy" and best of all! "Brooke Shields is Not Allowed to Get Old" which is about women aging.

I apologize for being repetitive, but since your post operates on a fundamental point, I feel justified in consistently responding to it as it crops up. These books get published because there's an audience for them. It's not like non-fiction books written with men in mind don't exist. There are plenty. Men just don't read them as much, which is why they don't gain as much popularity, and I'd suspect that, once again, this is true to such an extent that women probably read these male books not to a significantly lower extent than men, all because women read more.

Compare this to "how age works" by David Crystal. or "introductory lectures on psychoanalysis" by Sigmund Freud. I mean it's ridiculous how far we have fallen from actual intellectuals writing things to the average author being a midwit housewife who started writing for fun and wrote a book about a king raping a slave or whatever "dark romance" women enjoy.

But this has always been the case. Do you really think Freud was a popular author in his day? The popular books back then were of a similar "junk" quality to today even within the non-fiction category; they were better, yes, but it's the same idea.

That being said, there are a great deal of non-fiction books being published today. Most of the books I read now are non-fiction, and that's coming from someone who used to be huge on literature, so I don't agree that non-fiction has experienced a dip in quality; it's the opposite. Furthermore, I believe more men certainly read non-fiction these days than fiction; there are certainly fewer barriers and there's more representation of male authors and topics men tend to be interested in. But I suspect, in spite of this, because women read more, this is still true even for non-fiction books.

The decline in men's writing is also an integral factor we need to take into effect. Now before you dogpile on me look at it objectively. Nowadays everyone is writing a book. Whether is some Instagram health influencer or a politician it feels like every famous person is writing a book about their life. Whether it's Melania Trump or Vivek Ramaswamy everyone is keen on having a bestseller. Now the issue with this is that it clouds the book world with idiots. Many of you may wonder "Why is it that back in the day books were so much better?" well it's simple back then if you wanted to write a book you needed to be smart accomplished and have connections. Nowadays if you have 100k followers on Instagram you can get a best seller. Actual intellectuals can not get their books pushed out because of the saturation in the market.

This isn't true. Incredible books by incredibly intelligent people get written all the time. You just don't hear about them because people don't read, so it stands to reason that the books of the highest quality get overshadowed by those of a lower quality to appeal to the masses. Once again, there isn't necessarily a relationship between quality and popularity even within the world of literature; this has never been the case. Sometimes really great, insightful books reach the top of lists but there's no rule that dictates this must happen.

My point is people are putting too much emphasis on the author as opposed to the book. People will buy the latest robert greene book not because of the contents its because of "ooh robert greene I love him!" when in reality his books are made for midwits comprised of average middle school level psychology targeted at frat bros to "pick up bitches" it's written in a way that attracts pseudo-intellectuals. Now you may contribute this to the decline in critical thinking but honestly, I blame it on the publishing industry because like I said before the only books being released and marketed are for women so when a man finds a book targeted at him regardless of quality he will latch onto it claiming it to be gospel when in reality its utter dogshit.

This is to be expected even for books written for women. If the author is known, regardless of quality, of course the book has an advantage in the market.

It's not like these lower quality books you describe are necessarily written at the expense of higher quality ones; good books exist; they just don't beat out the shittier books because people don't read as is.

My final point is the education systems push to stray themselves from reading. College students report that they can not read a book a week which is something that would have been deemed utterly foolish 30 years ago. The reason? Schools have stopped requiring intense reading exercises.

I kind of agree with this, but it's a multifaceted problem. The reasons why even college students don't read as much has a lot to do with universities themselves, and how they've worsened over the years. And this, in turn, has to do with money, which in turn has to do with capitalism. There isn't as much of an incentive to fund humanities departments, and this coupled with the general decline of readership results in a decline in literacy even amongst educated people.

Now it's not just the fault of the students but the teachers as well because they simply have dumbed down the curriculum. They no longer create answers and questions that enforce you to actually read the book instead they structure them in a way that is deemed "more inclusive to the broader intelligence" In other words they make the questions easier because they want to be inclusive to retards.

This isn't true at all. The prevalence of AI in reading assignments in universities has more to do with issues pertaining to students and the general decline in literacy. Literary and history courses are actually difficult to do exceptional well in; STEM students report this all the time. I'm in university right now, so I can attest to this. That being said, maybe it's different where you live, but here where I live in North America, the opposite is true.

Now I'm not suggesting we should force kids to read no in fact that would do even more harm as it would build a negative connection to reading and they would see it as a chore or homework.

True. Kids should be encouraged to read according to their interests, and they should be encouraged to pursue and evaluate ideas critically and in their own ways.

Women have marketing advertising and encouragement to read in the form of posters libraries parents etc. However, men do not have any of that almost every book ad is targeted towards women in one way or another. Of course, reading in general is on the decline im sure most of you know that Gen Alpha can't even read in the 5th grade however it's much more noticeable recreationally in men as opposed to women.

Once again, books exist for men, but they will never be as popular with them. The question is what can actually be done to address the issue? Unfortunately, and I'm sure you'll agree with me wholeheartedly, especially set against the context of Gen Alpha, it's only going to get far, far worse. It probably won't improve because it's a societal problem, and it therefore can't be addressed through fragmented means; only widespread societal change that actually has to do with the way the system is organized can lead to necessary improvements.

I do think how society raises boys ought to be changed. We tend to be pretty hands-off, much to our detriment. Boys shouldn't be left alone; they should be encouraged to pursue their interests, to be creative and imaginative, to be curious, to be social. 21 centuries later, and we've yet to make ideal improvements in this regard. If we do, the weight of this problem will be alleviated.

Good post. If I misunderstand anything, or was unclear, my bad, my brain is mush right now, so let me know. I enjoyed reading it, and it gave me the opportunity to write this, which was also enjoyable, so thanks.

 

[fr0st]

I must commend you for taking the time and energy to make a high-effort post, especially since it must have required a great deal of courage given what's come to be expected from this forum. Don't feel hesitant about making more if the desire strikes because I love reading serious posts to which which some actual thought was dedicated.

That being said, I do not agree with your central point. And since you took the time to write all of this out, I'll take some in return to respond.

I don't think blaming men is a satisfying direction to take in trying to address the problem. I mean, sure, men aren't to be completely absolved of responsibility, but I think how boys are raised compared to girls carries more weight here. That being said, people in general don't read as much anymore, which surely has a lot to do with attention span, and how much new competition books have now with regards to holding people's attention. Therefore, leaving out the advent of social media and the internet in general is a grave error in this discussion, and that's not not even touching on music, which has never been easier to enjoy until now. And this leads us to your main point, which I fundamentally disagree with.

The lack of books being written by men and for men is not a cause of the problem but a symptom; it's a consequence. Why would there be more books being written for men if men don't read?

There's plenty of books being written for men. They're just not as popular because men don't read. Men don't read, which therefore means that even books with a male audience in mind are inherently fighting an uphill battle and will suffer the consequences.

The same issue arises here. Books written by POC and women don't get pushed at the expense of books written by white people and men. Perhaps there may an attempt at doing this, but books today are still predominantly written by white people. That's just a fact, and this is especially true as far is fiction is concerned, which is part of the reason why books written by POC and women get pushed and stand out more; they're rare and white people perceive reading about marginalized groups as being novel and interesting in and of itself (there's a whole discussion to be had about this alone).

I'm going to skip this tangent about intelligence since I generally agree.

Once again, this is not a cause of the problem, but a symptom. The books that are popular are popular because they cater to the audience that's available for them.

Also, I believe this example you bring up about TikTok actually has more to do with the general decline of literacy as opposed to looking at it from a gendered perspective. That is to say, the books that are being read by women, who are prized as being bigger readers than men, aren't even particularly valuable. And I don't think that this is specific to our current dopaminergic frenzy of a period we're all suffering through.

Take a look at the past; yes, people back then were leaps and bounds more literate than now, but the most popular books in their day were not necessarily sophisticated ones like War and Peace. I don't have the statistics for that specific example, but popular books back then were likely of a relative kind of superficiality and simplicity to what soars in popularity today; the standards have just changed, which means what I like to call "junk food" fiction existed back then but was far superior to the popular garbage you describe in the above paragraph, which is due to the general decline in literacy.

Also, back on this specific point of the decline in male readers being due to the lack of male writers and books, even with books that do fulfill these requirements, women read them to a comparative degree, if not more--because women read more. Once again, this is a symptom not a cause.

I apologize for being repetitive, but since your post operates on a fundamental point, I feel justified in consistently responding to it as it crops up. These books get published because there's an audience for them. It's not like non-fiction books written with men in mind don't exist. There are plenty. Men just don't read them as much, which is why they don't gain as much popularity, and I'd suspect that, once again, this is true to such an extent that women probably read these male books not to a significantly lower extent than men, all because women read more.

But this has always been the case. Do you really think Freud was a popular author in his day? The popular books back then were of a similar "junk" quality to today even within the non-fiction category; they were better, yes, but it's the same idea.

That being said, there are a great deal of non-fiction books being published today. Most of the books I read now are non-fiction, and that's coming from someone who used to be huge on literature, so I don't agree that non-fiction has experienced a dip in quality; it's the opposite. Furthermore, I believe more men certainly read non-fiction these days than fiction; there are certainly fewer barriers and there's more representation of male authors and topics men tend to be interested in. But I suspect, in spite of this, because women read more, this is still true even for non-fiction books.

This isn't true. Incredible books by incredibly intelligent people get written all the time. You just don't hear about them because people don't read, so it stands to reason that the books of the highest quality get overshadowed by those of a lower quality to appeal to the masses. Once again, there isn't necessarily a relationship between quality and popularity even within the world of literature; this has never been the case. Sometimes really great, insightful books reach the top of lists but there's no rule that dictates this must happen.

This is to be expected even for books written for women. If the author is known, regardless of quality, of course the book has an advantage in the market.

It's not like these lower quality books you describe are necessarily written at the expense of higher quality ones; good books exist; they just don't beat out the shittier books because people don't read as is.

I kind of agree with this, but it's a multifaceted problem. The reasons why even college students don't read as much has a lot to do with universities themselves, and how they've worsened over the years. And this, in turn, has to do with money, which in turn has to do with capitalism. There isn't as much of an incentive to fund humanities departments, and this coupled with the general decline of readership results in a decline in literacy even amongst educated people.

This isn't true at all. The prevalence of AI in reading assignments in universities has more to do with issues pertaining to students and the general decline in literacy. Literary and history courses are actually difficult to do exceptional well in; STEM students report this all the time. I'm in university right now, so I can attest to this. That being said, maybe it's different where you live, but here where I live in North America, the opposite is true.

True. Kids should be encouraged to read according to their interests, and they should be encouraged to pursue and evaluate ideas critically and in their own ways.

Once again, books exist for men, but they will never be as popular with them. The question is what can actually be done to address the issue? Unfortunately, and I'm sure you'll agree with me wholeheartedly, especially set against the context of Gen Alpha, it's only going to get far, far worse. It probably won't improve because it's a societal problem, and it therefore can't be addressed through fragmented means; only widespread societal change that actually has to do with the way the system is organized can lead to necessary improvements.

I do think how society raises boys ought to be changed. We tend to be pretty hands-off, much to our detriment. Boys shouldn't be left alone; they should be encouraged to pursue their interests, to be creative and imaginative, to be curious, to be social. 21 centuries later, and we've yet to make ideal improvements in this regard. If we do, the weight of this problem will be alleviated.

Good post. If I misunderstand anything, or was unclear, my bad, my brain is mush right now, so let me know. I enjoyed reading it, and it gave me the opportunity to write this, which was also enjoyable, so thanks.

Thank you for the response ill read all of it and reply. i appreciate you replying this entire thread was meant for these types of responses lol.

 

[Krisis]

Thank you for the response ill read all of it and reply. i appreciate you replying this entire thread was meant for these types of responses lol.

Yeah, I could have condensed it more, though, so mb

 

[fr0st]

I must commend you for taking the time and energy to make a high-effort post, especially since it must have required a great deal of courage given what's come to be expected from this forum. Don't feel hesitant about making more if the desire strikes because I love reading serious posts to which which some actual thought was dedicated.

That being said, I do not agree with your central point. And since you took the time to write all of this out, I'll take some in return to respond.

I don't think blaming men is a satisfying direction to take in trying to address the problem. I mean, sure, men aren't to be completely absolved of responsibility, but I think how boys are raised compared to girls carries more weight here. That being said, people in general don't read as much anymore, which surely has a lot to do with attention span, and how much new competition books have now with regards to holding people's attention. Therefore, leaving out the advent of social media and the internet in general is a grave error in this discussion, and that's not not even touching on music, which has never been easier to enjoy until now. And this leads us to your main point, which I fundamentally disagree with.

The lack of books being written by men and for men is not a cause of the problem but a symptom; it's a consequence. Why would there be more books being written for men if men don't read?

There's plenty of books being written for men. They're just not as popular because men don't read. Men don't read, which therefore means that even books with a male audience in mind are inherently fighting an uphill battle and will suffer the consequences.

The same issue arises here. Books written by POC and women don't get pushed at the expense of books written by white people and men. Perhaps there may an attempt at doing this, but books today are still predominantly written by white people. That's just a fact, and this is especially true as far is fiction is concerned, which is part of the reason why books written by POC and women get pushed and stand out more; they're rare and white people perceive reading about marginalized groups as being novel and interesting in and of itself (there's a whole discussion to be had about this alone).

I'm going to skip this tangent about intelligence since I generally agree.

Once again, this is not a cause of the problem, but a symptom. The books that are popular are popular because they cater to the audience that's available for them.

Also, I believe this example you bring up about TikTok actually has more to do with the general decline of literacy as opposed to looking at it from a gendered perspective. That is to say, the books that are being read by women, who are prized as being bigger readers than men, aren't even particularly valuable. And I don't think that this is specific to our current dopaminergic frenzy of a period we're all suffering through.

Take a look at the past; yes, people back then were leaps and bounds more literate than now, but the most popular books in their day were not necessarily sophisticated ones like War and Peace. I don't have the statistics for that specific example, but popular books back then were likely of a relative kind of superficiality and simplicity to what soars in popularity today; the standards have just changed, which means what I like to call "junk food" fiction existed back then but was far superior to the popular garbage you describe in the above paragraph, which is due to the general decline in literacy.

Also, back on this specific point of the decline in male readers being due to the lack of male writers and books, even with books that do fulfill these requirements, women read them to a comparative degree, if not more--because women read more. Once again, this is a symptom not a cause.

I apologize for being repetitive, but since your post operates on a fundamental point, I feel justified in consistently responding to it as it crops up. These books get published because there's an audience for them. It's not like non-fiction books written with men in mind don't exist. There are plenty. Men just don't read them as much, which is why they don't gain as much popularity, and I'd suspect that, once again, this is true to such an extent that women probably read these male books not to a significantly lower extent than men, all because women read more.

But this has always been the case. Do you really think Freud was a popular author in his day? The popular books back then were of a similar "junk" quality to today even within the non-fiction category; they were better, yes, but it's the same idea.

That being said, there are a great deal of non-fiction books being published today. Most of the books I read now are non-fiction, and that's coming from someone who used to be huge on literature, so I don't agree that non-fiction has experienced a dip in quality; it's the opposite. Furthermore, I believe more men certainly read non-fiction these days than fiction; there are certainly fewer barriers and there's more representation of male authors and topics men tend to be interested in. But I suspect, in spite of this, because women read more, this is still true even for non-fiction books.

This isn't true. Incredible books by incredibly intelligent people get written all the time. You just don't hear about them because people don't read, so it stands to reason that the books of the highest quality get overshadowed by those of a lower quality to appeal to the masses. Once again, there isn't necessarily a relationship between quality and popularity even within the world of literature; this has never been the case. Sometimes really great, insightful books reach the top of lists but there's no rule that dictates this must happen.

This is to be expected even for books written for women. If the author is known, regardless of quality, of course the book has an advantage in the market.

It's not like these lower quality books you describe are necessarily written at the expense of higher quality ones; good books exist; they just don't beat out the shittier books because people don't read as is.

I kind of agree with this, but it's a multifaceted problem. The reasons why even college students don't read as much has a lot to do with universities themselves, and how they've worsened over the years. And this, in turn, has to do with money, which in turn has to do with capitalism. There isn't as much of an incentive to fund humanities departments, and this coupled with the general decline of readership results in a decline in literacy even amongst educated people.

This isn't true at all. The prevalence of AI in reading assignments in universities has more to do with issues pertaining to students and the general decline in literacy. Literary and history courses are actually difficult to do exceptional well in; STEM students report this all the time. I'm in university right now, so I can attest to this. That being said, maybe it's different where you live, but here where I live in North America, the opposite is true.

True. Kids should be encouraged to read according to their interests, and they should be encouraged to pursue and evaluate ideas critically and in their own ways.

Once again, books exist for men, but they will never be as popular with them. The question is what can actually be done to address the issue? Unfortunately, and I'm sure you'll agree with me wholeheartedly, especially set against the context of Gen Alpha, it's only going to get far, far worse. It probably won't improve because it's a societal problem, and it therefore can't be addressed through fragmented means; only widespread societal change that actually has to do with the way the system is organized can lead to necessary improvements.

I do think how society raises boys ought to be changed. We tend to be pretty hands-off, much to our detriment. Boys shouldn't be left alone; they should be encouraged to pursue their interests, to be creative and imaginative, to be curious, to be social. 21 centuries later, and we've yet to make ideal improvements in this regard. If we do, the weight of this problem will be alleviated.

Good post. If I misunderstand anything, or was unclear, my bad, my brain is mush right now, so let me know. I enjoyed reading it, and it gave me the opportunity to write this, which was also enjoyable, so thanks.

First and foremost, I’d like to thank you for such a well-thought-out and written response. I always appreciate it when I’m critiqued because, honestly, most of the time, I need it, lol. A lot of the points you brought up, I agree with, and upon further reflection, I would phrase things differently. Not to absolve myself of wrongdoing, but it’s late at night, and I’m more so just doing this for fun, lol. First, I’d like to take back/retract some of my previous points before getting to the points I’d like to defend.

Yes, if I were to write this again, I would have put in social media and short-form content—I agree.

I do agree that there are plenty of authors that write good books and are just overshadowed; however, I think this is a symptom of the broader issue I discussed (I’ll refer to this later).

I agree on the TikTok point. Upon reflection, that was a bit flimsy and was mostly written out of anger, lol.

I also agree that the past books were most likely not popular. I don’t know this, though, and after researching, I couldn’t find anything, but logically, you are probably right.

There are more things that I agree with; however, for the sake of time, I’ll just start on the points I’d like to defend.

First of all, the point that books written for women are more popular, thus is why they are selling more—I agree. But that is precisely the problem. My point is that it’s wrongful of the industry to neglect male authors in turn for profits. This is mostly on a moral ground, and feel free to call it out, but I think that, in general, if a piece of media is skewed to one side, it’s bad. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to smaller things (like games, series, etc.). I’m more so talking on a broader scale. Obviously, for most things, there will always be an inherent bias, such as men being more likely to enjoy football and women being more likely to enjoy makeup (obviously, there are outliers). However, for a medium as broad as literature, I think that it would be more beneficial to work on more inclusion of male authors in contemporary literature. I’m well aware that most of this push is centered around the idea that female and LGBTQ authors are just now able to express themselves; however, if you, in the process, cloud the market with your new ideas and overshadow other groups, I personally think it’s unfair.

The point that there are plenty of books for men and that they’re overshadowed—I agree, and again, I think this is largely in part due to publishers. Simply put, publishers are neglecting male authors in turn for profits, and I think that’s a shame. I cannot think of the last time I saw a book being advertised for a male audience (obviously, this is anecdotal), but still, I think that says something.

The point on attention span and competition—I agree on, so I won’t go any further.

Now, the point of men not reading is an interesting one because I think that it’s important to look at the why. Why do men not read anymore? Well, in my opinion, again, it’s because they have no reason to. Yes, this is largely in part due to social media, etc., but again, we tend to gloss over the importance of literacy in men. I know personally most men didn’t grow up being told to read, write, etc., but instead, that’s what we told women to do, which I’m sure is a large factor in this (I know this was a point you made; I’m just writing it down to reiterate it).

Now, on the point of nonfiction dipping in quality—I think this may just be a difference in opinion on my part; however, I’ll explain my reasoning. Most of the nonfiction nowadays lacks the insight it had some 30-40 years ago. For instance, the surge in "self-help books" is largely to blame. I understand that there are good and insightful nonfiction books buried under these; however, I’m more so talking on a broader level. For instance, if you go to the nonfiction area, you will most likely see "The Millionaire’s Guide" or something. I think we can both agree most of these books are bogus and solely written to leech off of the naïve hopes and dreams of young men hoping to "make it big." And that’s another point I wish I brought up—a lot of literature nowadays is focused on exploiting young men. We can obviously point fingers outside of literature (Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc.); however, look at all of the millionaire and "red pill" books, and you can see a clear similarity.

My main point is that the industry is skewed towards women, and in turn, the industry is making books for women in the majority. This is mostly a meditation of sorts to where I’m just documenting my thoughts. However, I do think some of what I said is true to where the industry is pushing books written by women. I know you covered that and explained why that is, and I understand the novelty; however, it’s a great shame that men cannot find a book that is discussed in great length. I know that when I was in middle school, me and my friends would talk about Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Tower Treasure, etc., and I think losing that is sad.

Altogether, I think you’re mostly right on a lot of your points, and I also think that I just worded it wrong. Thank you for your response—you’re one of the few people on this forum where I can genuinely tell you’re smart and not just using long words for the sake of sounding like a sesquipedalian, lol.

P.S. If I missed any important talking points, let me know, and I’ll try my best to respond. It’s late at night, and I’m tired, but since you gave such a well-written and thought-out response, I feel an obligation to come into this in good faith and thoroughly go through every one of your arguments.

 

[looksmaxxed]

all good literature is pro white, thus they are being suppressed in favor of tripe by brown transexuals

 

[abcd]

Words words words anyways this is a good thing

Fiction is garbage; novels are nothing but a waste of time.

Saying that men reading novels less is a bad thing is like saying women playing video games less is a bad thing.
How is spending less time on pointless entertainment anything but a positive?
The worship of novels is entirely unjustified and absurd. They should be viewed as nothing but trash.

Braindead let's just get rid of everything books video games movies the whole fucking internet cus its "pointless entertainment" if you're not David goggins grinding 24/7 you're wasting your time.

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

Braindead let's just get rid of everything books video games movies the whole fucking internet cus its "pointless entertainment" if you're not David goggins grinding 24/7 you're wasting your time.

I didn’t say you have to get rid of it
I’m just saying you should acknowledge it for what it is - entertainment - and now act like it’s productive and beneficial

 

[abcd]

I didn’t say you have to get rid of it
I’m just saying you should acknowledge it for what it is - entertainment - and now act like it’s productive and beneficial

Yea I agree that it's entertainment but I definitely think it's more beneficial than brain rotting on tiktok or grinding some video game for 10 k hours

 

[looksmaxxed]

many simulators and pro white videogames are more educational than college courses. a quality piece of entertainment media may spur greater interest and research in a given subject. youtube videos beat a harvard education. and a person who has watched evropa the last battle is already more educated than the vast majority of ww2 historians and scholars.

books are an outdated form of knowledge transfer, 99% of most literature are pleonasms. there are simply more efficient ways of receiving high quality information like wikipedia articles or twitter posts

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

Braindead let's just get rid of everything books video games movies the whole fucking internet cus its "pointless entertainment" if you're not David goggins grinding 24/7 you're wasting your time.

Yea I agree that it's entertainment but I definitely think it's more beneficial than brain rotting on tiktok or grinding some video game for 10 k hours

Probably a bit better than video games
But I think TikTok is more beneficial

 

[Krisis]

Not to absolve myself of wrongdoing, but it’s late at night, and I’m more so just doing this for fun, lol.

Yeah, it's no worries, dude. It's mostly fun for me as well. After all, remember the website this is taking place on lmao.

I also agree that the past books were most likely not popular. I don’t know this, though, and after researching, I couldn’t find anything, but logically, you are probably right.

I couldn't really find anything either beyond this Wikipedia article:

Bookman list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1890s - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know about you, but I don't recognize any of the books listed here. Some of them are so unknown that they don't even have dedicated articles.

You'd probably have to look into this deeper to find more data, but my point still stands strong in my opinion. The books listed in the above article don't particularly seem to explore very sophisticated ideas. I'm sure they were written well relative to now, and were generally of a higher quality than what's popular today, but it's the same picture. Popularity does not equate to quality, never has.

My point is that it’s wrongful of the industry to neglect male authors in turn for profits.

We both agree that the industry doesn't push books for men, and I see where you're coming from in this sense: Have you ever seen a shelf in a bookstore entitled "Books for men" or something along those lines? Probably not. Many would probably deem this as problematic.

So I do agree that there is a bit of misandrist pressure that prohibits people pushing books for men, but I don't think the industry mainly pushing books for women is primarily due to this. The industry pushes books for women because, as I've said, they understand their audience, namely women, and therefore cater to them. If more men read, you'd see more books pushed that aren't specifically for women.

Perhaps you were trying to get across that books with a male audience in mind may be susceptible to scrutiny by feminists--in which case, I'd agree, which is relevant to my point that I made there at the end and which you reiterated; men ought to be talked to; they ought to be helped, and that includes having more books written for them, and in order for this to become a possibility, boys have to be encouraged to read, among other things, and conversations about men have to develop and mature. When this happens, more male writers will exist who care about male issues.

Most of the nonfiction nowadays lacks the insight it had some 30-40 years ago. For instance, the surge in "self-help books" is largely to blame. I understand that there are good and insightful nonfiction books buried under these; however, I’m more so talking on a broader level. For instance, if you go to the nonfiction area, you will most likely see "The Millionaire’s Guide" or something. I think we can both agree most of these books are bogus and solely written to leech off of the naïve hopes and dreams of young men hoping to "make it big." And that’s another point I wish I brought up—a lot of literature nowadays is focused on exploiting young men.

Well, these books are "popular" books. Self-help books do well, so what does well tends to be superficial.

That being said, consider the male suicide rate. Try searching up books on specifically male suicide. Not much comes up, and the books that do come up are most likely ones you've never heard of before. But books on topics like these are far more valuable, and have more to do with masculinity than The Millionaire's Guide or whatever.

The question is, why don't books like this get published? There's many reasons, but I think you're right in calling out that books like these could probably be deemed problematic by the industry and people in general. Therefore, I do agree with you in the sense that there probably is some pressure or bias impeding men within the world of books, but the fact that books for women gain more prevalence has to do primarily with the fact that women read more than men. Once again, the lack of books being written for men is a symptom of the problem, not a cause, but I do agree that there are some social obstacles at play that is responsible for the lack of male writers and readers. It all boils down to how we treat issues pertaining to men in our current world, which isn't good, and I'm sure you agree with me there.

Altogether, I think you’re mostly right on a lot of your points, and I also think that I just worded it wrong

Yeah, I think I have a better sense of your point. We just disagree that women's books get pushed more due to some weird prejudice and/or bias from the industry; this prejudice exists, but it's more of a widespread societal problem as opposed to some industry DEI takeover. What gets pushed will always have to do with who the consumers are. It's business after all.

 

[WeiWei]

Not reading all that tbh

 

[abcd]

Probably a bit better than video games
But I think TikTok is more beneficial

How is tiktok more beneficial I've never used it before but Instagram reels and yt shorts arent beneficial to me at all ngl

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

How is tiktok more beneficial I've never used it before but Instagram reels and yt shorts arent beneficial to me at all ngl

Learn stuff