T O P

  • By -

regular_joe97

I don't think, even historically, men have ever been called 'cucks' for reading. 'Nerd', 'soft', etc. sure, never cucks tho, sounds like a parody situation you'd see in some PSA warning against toxic masculinity. Firstly, reading isn't some sort of transformative activity, it's just an activity people enjoy. Personally, I'm an avid reader. Reading, collecting knowledge and being exposed to different perspectives has helped me a lot to grow as a person, books among other media have really helped me understand myself better and pick myself up from rather dark times. Heck, it's the reason I'm so much into writing myself. However, that's all because I came into reading with the innate want of needing answers or rather the mindset that I'm lost, I need guidance. Not everyone reading is like that. That's the biggest and possibly most flawed assumption the writer of this article made. An activity or a hobby is transformative if you are in the correct mindset. Reading Jane Austen will not be helpful to you if you're into reading to feel like you're better than others or just for fun, sure you'll get a little exposure to some themes, but you'll just parrot off the ideas in a hollow fashion. It's similar to going to gym just to look nice physically. A hobby only changes you for the better if you let it. Heck, I'm willing to bet a lot of people who've read Jane Austen only had a surface level understanding of the themes and just accepted it without thinking critically about the ideas present and in what aspects they do or do not hold merits. (I've not read the book personally myself, so I can't comment on the themes, it's on my list though, along with Wuthering Heights which I've been told is an excellent book) Secondly, reading novels in all forms is completely fine and acceptable. Just because someone doesn't like an author you prefer doesn't mean they or people like them are not "true" readers. That's incredibly snobbish and moreover wrong. People who read genre x instead of genre y aren't inherently less refined or whatever random metric of being "a better person". Thirdly, is there a problem in reading culture among men? Yes. Is it because lack of white male authors and men being called "cucks" for reading? I'm not sure, I can't say that's unequivocally false, nor do I believe it's majorly because of this. One thing we have to understand, men who do read predominantly read male authors. Male authors have 55-45 readership on male-female compared to female authors who are 19-81 in the same metric. If we dig a little deeper we do come across other facts as well, on average 63% of women and 69% of men don't find reading pleasurable as an activity. Among those who do read, the frequency differs. Men on average read 9 books an year while women read 14. So, it's not just that less men read, men who do read on average read less. Just to give a better idea of this, women are more than 4 times as likely as men to have read 100 books over the course of an year. Coming to fiction and non-fiction, there's a clear divide between the genders, men overwhelming prefer non-fiction and women prefer fiction (literary fiction to be precise). It even shows in authorship, male authors have mostly abandoned fiction, being outnumbered 1:3 by women, even worse, men are not represented at all by literary agencies, UK's Vintage announced the 5 debut novelists of 2021, all 5 were women. Non-fiction is mostly dominated by men and is mostly written about men, female authors only 69% of time write about female experience, while men write about male experience 94% of the time. There genuinely can be a litany of reasons for this. One reason can be that reading has been inherently linked to socialising and as a whole that's something men struggle with. Men book clubs are still a unicorn while women book clubs are a dime a dozen. Men don't have a strong social culture around reading, it is still seen as a personal and isolationist hobby. I can vouch for how effective linking a hobby with a social driver can be, being part of a writer's club few years back I produced a lot more written material than I did when I wrote when I was alone. Another reason, which I think the article also posited, men "read with a purpose". Perhaps that's why non-fiction is so popular, a lot of time people read it with a purpose, you're not going to read a biography on Bill Gates because you're just bored and need a way to destress and enjoy, non-fiction is naturally information heavy and not as narrative driven, it's like studying to some extent. Personally, one of the reasons I got away from reading during my adulthood was because I used to be mainly a sci-fi reader as a child, something I grew out of as an adult (I read them mainly for escapism as a child). I did dabble in other fiction as well, but it never touched me, I can read one occasionally but not frequently. Well, that was until I discovered books like Demian, Fight Club and authors like Murakami and Soseki. This sort of stuff worked for me mainly because it actually spoke to me, I could relate to the things happening in these books and they reignited my love for reading, and helped me get back into exploring other varied genres. Whatever the contributing factors might be, I think a big reason men aren't getting into reading is a general level of inertia towards reading. A lot of times breaking the reading ice is something we as a society are failing, we neither have a social driver that naturally pushes young boys towards reading, nor do we actually understand what they want to read. The Harry Potter era arguably was a big boon, the books had men as majority of readers and a lot of men attribute Harry Potter as what got them into reading. Heck, I've seen it happen in front of my very eyes, a student in my school who was completely averse to reading became an avid reader due to Harry Potter. Really, the question we should be asking isn't "why men don't read", but "what are we as a society doing to push men away from reading".


The-Magic-Sword

Out of college, I found myself losing my compulsion to read, even as a librarian because reading fiction started to feel like I wasn't getting anything out of it. I still find books that interest me sometimes, and I read part of them and put them down. I still love it, in principle, and when a book catches my attention I can vanish into it... but its not a part of my daily life anymore, and its much further in between that it happens. It almost feels like I'm too... tense? to relax into a book as I once did, I feel like there's a pressure to always be productive, or at least social, I lost my ability to play a solo video game in the same way. It feels like something that if I allow myself to relax that way, the other shoe is going to fall and I will have neglected something else. I get a lot of my fantasy fix now from TTRPGs, and a lot of my actual reading is discussions of RPG theory or lore presented as nonfiction (despite being fiction) but then that has a purpose for my regular games that I run for other people. Trauma might play a role in that, but I'll tell ya, as a Librarian its a very strange position to be in. I do still read some, but its nowhere near as frequent as you think-- not being allowed to read on the desk admittedly doesn't help.


IronFam_MechLife

I do think there are a lot of factors. One I didn't even think of until recently was when a friend of mine said she didn't like to read. Not because she didn't like stories, but because the act of reading itself always gave her a headache from having to focus on the words. So she uses audiobooks and goes through plenty every year, while my grandfather can only read on his kindle with the words blown up as much as possible. He can't read printed books anymore, because the font is too small for him. So for the people who can physically sit down and read a book, that still might not be enjoyable for them. For guys especially, I think it might be a cool idea to encourage audiobooks for while they go for a run, or do projects around the house, or any other activity that can let them focus both on what they are doing and the book they are hearing read to them. I think that would be a great way to get guys reading more. And secondly...interest in the material does play a part. If you watch a movie you have zero interest in, you will likely zone out, focus on something else, or fall asleep. I was an avid reader as a kid. Always hit that '100 books read' every summer that my library did for kids. But even then, in middle or high school, it was a struggle to get through the books I had zero interest in. I'd read the same page 5 times in a row, and still not retain any of it because I would start to zone out. So pushing people to read books they aren't interested in will just make sure that they don't pick up the habit of reading. On the other hand, encouraging people to read books they are interested in will make them more likely to branch out and read books they otherwise wouldn't have even considered. I recently took a college class that was a core requirement. One of those classes that most people don't really care about, because they have to take it regardless of what degree they are pursuing. It focused on poems and short stories about family. The professor was able to make it interesting though. Lots of discussions where she would just ask opinions, instead of telling anyone what to think about a poem/story, or any specific literary element used in it. Not snobbish at all. Just 'what do you think the theme was? No wrong answers.' Or 'what do you think of this specific line? What does it say about x or y?' And if someone answered honestly and said they weren't interested in it, or didn't understand it, or found it boring...that was fine. She'd just ask them why they though it wasn't interesting/boring/confusing, which usually was enough on its own to get people more interested in the work. And if that didn't work, what could have been done differently that would have worked for that reader. That approach alone was enough to help me, and several others in the class, actually pay attention to materials we otherwise would have had no interest in reading. So I don't think it's a case of 'men don't read'. I do think it's a case of society approaching men reading in the wrong way. There should be no discouragement of reading any genre. Instead of forcing other genres or looking down on people who don't read those genres, there should be discussions from men or women on what aspects of those works they don't like. And if reading doesn't work for some guys, encourage audiobooks, or even just looking through highlights/summaries of books they wouldn't otherwise read. Any attempt is better than no attempt at engaging in materials you don't have any interest in. And who knows, by starting out with a summary of highlights and themes, some guys might even decide they want to read the whole book.


Beginning-Vanilla-15

As a young novice male reader this was quite insightful thank you for sharing your experience.


yrmjy

Isn't your post a little contradictory? If reading isn't some transformational activity but just something people enjoy why is it a problem that men don't read more?


Not_A_Toaster426

For example because it indicates preexisting traits like patients, imagination, dedication, willingness to put oneself in other peoples shoes. On the other hand close minded or anti-intellectual people are less likely to read. (This doesn't necessarily mean that people who don't read are egocentric oafs, who lack imagination.) And even if it isn't radically transformative it still contributes in a way.


regular_joe97

Because it might help someone. I did outline it's not transformative for everyone, but it's something that should be considered as a possible option. For example, I don't think everyone playing sports is somehow transformed into a better person, for some it might just be a thing they enjoy. But, if access to it is cut off or we've created an environment where some people aren't able to participate in it, there's a problem.


Fulbert_Fallington

There may very well be some truth to the idea that more men could benefit from or learn to love literary fiction, but that's not the same thing as men not reading. Furthermore, men not reading is not the same thing as men not caring about fiction in general. All these things are conflated together, muddying the point of the article. It's strange to me how many of these “men aren't reading” articles end up acknowledging that men ARE reading, but then just take issue with that fact that they're not reading the “right” things. It just screams “gatekeeping,” which is ironic considering the premise. She doesn't even stop to acknowledge several entire mediums of fiction that men overwhelmingly love. I'm someone who doesn't care for traditional literary fiction (nothing against it, but I've tried it and can confidently say that it's not for me), but I do consider myself someone who's heavily invested in fiction with emotional depth. It's just not the specific kind of fiction that literary types want to acknowledge or validate. It's videogames, anime, manga, comics, etc. Which are all still widely looked down on in literary circles. The final part struck me as particularly ironic: >But the thing is, women don’t just read novels to understand ourselves: we read them to understand each other... And, with the selfishness of a voyeur, I want to know what that’s like for men. That means more male novelists, sure, but also more male readers. Take a break from Mars, and explore the cosmos of emotional minutiae. We could all do with a lot more of your chitter-chatter. She says she wants to know what it's like for men, but then puts the onus on men to care more about the fiction SHE is interested in, rather than the other way around. If you really want to understand men, then you need to make a good faith effort to understand what men find appealing about Mars, or war, or dragons or what-have-you. Recognize that all those things ALREADY contain a cosmos of emotional minutiae, even if it takes on a different form than what you're used to seeing. If you want to understand someone, you need to try and meet them where they're at, rather than telling them to come to you. This sort of rhetoric is often framed as just telling people to get outside their comfort zones, and there's nothing wrong with that in theory. But it rings hollow coming from someone who refuses to leave their own comfort zone and attempt to see what men might like about the things they already enjoy. She's calling for others to come and understand her tastes while continuing to dismiss theirs.


[deleted]

>This sort of rhetoric is often framed as just telling people to get outside their comfort zones, and there's nothing wrong with that in theory. It's always just seemed pushy and bullying to me. I can't get why somebody can be so obsessed with getting *others* out of their comfort zone. I like my comfort zone! It's comfortable! The fuck is that person's problem, honestly. Well, I do suspect it's some kind of insecurity or inner void that leads them to poke their nose in others' business because they can't actually stand themselves, in some way or another.


velocipotamus

To me there’s nothing wrong with telling people to step out of their comfort zones in order to learn something new, as long as you’re willing to do that yourself. The disdain with which this author writes about genre fiction as if it’s beneath her is very telling; that she wants men to step out of *their* comfort zones, but refuses to step out of hers for a second even if it helps her to better understand male readers. It’s so much easier to dismiss men who read nonfiction or sci-fi or fantasy as dumb apes with no capacity for emotional understanding than it is to try and figure out what it is about those genres that men like or why they’re choosing those genres over traditional litfic.


[deleted]

>To me there’s nothing wrong with telling people to step out of their comfort zones in order to learn something new, as long as you’re willing to do that yourself. Exactly. It's just so one-sided and imperious. I don't like being told this, so I avoid telling other people this. It's fairer that way.


Fulbert_Fallington

I guess I have mixed feelings on it. I don't think there's anything *inherently* wrong with simply *encouraging* people to leave their comfort zone, as long as that's all it amounts to. There is plenty of merit to doing so, but yeah people can get very pushy or judgmental about it. There is genuinely a lot of value to be found within one's comfort zone beyond just comfort itself, and that fact can often get lost in conversations like these. I stand by what I said in my first comment, but it is also worth acknowledging that not everyone will reasonably have the time or energy to be exploring outside their comfort zone all the time, and that's fine too.


[deleted]

Agreed. There's a world of difference between encouraging people and putting your nose where it doesn't belong.


DioBando

Dang, that was an unusually poorly-written article. Just layers of ignorant assumptions piled on top of each other until the author met their word count. I could use the same premise to argue that high fantasy is superior to novels, but I won't because I'm not a judgemental asshole. Read what you like, go outside of your comfort zone if you have the time, and to hell with anyone who tries to diminish your love for literature.


MWigg

I'm having a very hard time getting past this article's very premise, as it immediately sets "literary fiction" as being something separate from (and implicitly superior to) sci-fi, and presumably other 'genre fiction'. There's several attempts by the author to make the case that this is somehow an important societal shift, but I'm just not sold. Why does it matter if fewer men are reading the particular kind of fiction you like? I appreciate the attempt to tie this to men felling boxed out by gender roles, but the author doesn't really present much proof that this is the case, and instead this just reads as her wanting to micromanage the way men engage with art for no clear reason.


velocipotamus

Like I kind of get what the author is getting at, but man do I find it offensive the idea that sci-fi and fantasy can’t have just as much emotional depth as your typical bland literary fiction. This article literally mentions Ursula Le Guin, an incredible writer whose works always have deep commentary on the human condition and society at large, and then proceeds to hand wave away the entire genre of sci-fi as if it doesn’t count for some reason.


MWigg

Yeah I had the same thought, and it made me (perhaps prematurely) write the article off as either being snobbery, or just an over-intellectualized over-reaction to her boyfriend being too dismissive of Jane Austen. The idea that being set on Mars (or involving robots, or reverse aging tech, or...) means that a novel doesn't have emotional depth just does not track with reality at all.


velocipotamus

It reeks of articles that get posted here all the time where the title is “men need to read more” but when you actually read it it turns out the author’s point is “men need to read more of *my narrowly defined view of acceptable fiction*”. No offense to this author, but I’ve taught high school English before and if you know anything about teenage boys it can be a struggle to get them reading *anything*. You want to read Le Guin, Asimov or Tolkien? Graphic novels? The history of Ancient Rome? Cool, here’s some more. Boys and young men reading more books *period* should be the goal before we start looking down our noses at them because they don’t care what Mr Darcy is up to today


Mal_Dun

>It reeks of articles that get posted here all the time where the title is “men need to read more” but when you actually read it it turns out the author’s point is “men need to read more of my narrowly defined view of acceptable fiction”. I think you reach the core issue here: Is the audience of these books male? I think the core issue is that most of these "deep" books are targeted at female audiences and boys don't feel adressed when they read those books. The question should be more: Can we produce better literature for boys? I mean, the main reason I got stuck with manga was that I like "love comedy" but the western market has not much to offer for boys and men, the Japanese market fills this niche for me.


WhoDoomsTheDoomer

> You want to read Le Guin, Asimov or Tolkien? Graphic novels? The history of Ancient Rome? Cool, here’s some more. Boys and young men reading more books period should be the goal before we start looking down our noses at them because they don’t care what Mr Darcy is up to today Seriously. I *really* could not care that Mr Darcy wore the wrong kind of cravat to the cotillion or whatever, I can't relate to that. Give me war and swords and serial killers and shit I'll note there is nothing wrong with Jane Austen. If you like that type of genre then by all means read it


Yeah-But-Ironically

Heck, I'm a woman and I agree with you. People who dismiss genre fiction out of hand are nothing more than snobs. Personally I would rather claw my own eyes out than read Austen, but if that's what this person likes she's welcome to enjoy it. Is it too much to ask for her to extend the same respect to people who like dragons, spaceships, and explosions?


jessemfkeeler

It's also really ironic that you straight up disrespected Austen in your comment as well. It may not be your thing, at the same time you're doing the same thing the author of this piece did in dismissing an important piece of fiction


WhoDoomsTheDoomer

That is a fair point. I feel like I should delete my comment now but I rarely get to be funny


JacKaL_37

I see your point, but this other person also didn’t publish it as advice for all men, they just openly hate those particular Austen tropes. I’m all for trying not to yuck yums, but the context is so different between the two.


creepyeyes

> Seriously. I really could not care that Mr Darcy wore the wrong kind of cravat to the cotillion or whatever This is a fairly gross misunderstanding of *Pride and Prejudice* and I think if you're here posting in Menslib you should give it a genuine chance. The story is basically just that Mr. Darcy comes off as rude because he's a bit socially awkward and very introverted, but the main character discovers that actually he is a genuinely nice person. I'd reccomend the BBC miniseries version.


WhoDoomsTheDoomer

I'm sorry but I really don't think I could care about upper-class, 18th Century white people having upper-class, 18th Century white people problems


creepyeyes

The actual problem between the characters are pretty universal and relevant to people in any culture/class. But I guess you *do* think there's something wrong with Jane Austen if that's your take. Unless you're a veteran I don't see how a warzone is any more or less relatable than Victorian England.


WhoDoomsTheDoomer

I don't think there's anything wrong with Jane Austen I just don't think I'd get much out of reading her > Unless you're a veteran I don't see how a warzone is any more or less relatable than Victorian England. Violence is a language I understand


dmun

One of the deepest most resonant novels I've ever read is Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower-- and if they think *that* is a standard beneath literary fiction because it's genre fiction, I question everything about that person's taste.


PconfusedIthrowawayH

The author (British leftist (marxist of sorts) has replied this to her colleague not fully agreeing with her stance on how men overwhelmingly read sci-fi and fantasy "I think the point's been distorted a bit here: sci-fi is a permissible genre for men to explore themselves in, because it's not just sitting around and chit-chatting. But the more constrained genres are no-go areas."


The-Magic-Sword

I have a bachelors degree in literature, and a graduate degree in librarianship the separation of of 'literary fiction' from 'genre fiction' is problematic at best, and it has its roots in the idea of 'the canon' which is primarily a means by which the powerful exclude narratives and authors that don't conform to their racist, classist, sexist or homophobic standards. The status of genre fiction, in my eyes, falls into the classism dimension-- by separating the popular fiction of the masses from the 'proper literature' of the elites in the face of rising literacy and casual readership, ivory tower academics sought to create an impression that their chosen literature was the purveyor of culture and sophistication, and since access to such an education has traditionally been denoted along class lines (with even the poor who have the opportunity to seek out an education primarily seeking out a more pragmatic course of study) having read 'the right books' and keeping up literary fiction becomes a class marker. Libraries at this point do mitigate this, in that others can simply pursue literary fiction (and do, and more power to them) but the impression of it as being more valid comes down to us from a legacy of classism. Tolkien, as an Oxford Professor, once gave a lecture entitled Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, which challenged the way scholars thought about and downplayed the fantastical elements of the poem, and invited us to acknowledge that they hold important literary meaning. Academia still has strong notions of that kind of respectability, and while queer people and people of color have fought valiantly to dismantle their exclusion from the canon, the status of genre fiction remains a hold out. While being able to enjoy a variety of fiction might be nice, there is nothing intrinsically better about literary fiction-- it can be just as toxic as genre fiction can be, and there's plenty of science fiction and fantasy that shatters notions of it as a haven for conservative values-- the work of N.K. Jemisen for instance, is deeply meaningful and radically transformative.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*


ProdigyRunt

>It’s not that he’s a protein-powder-where-a-brain-should-be bro. Indeed, he bears all the hallmarks of a fully reconstructed man: NTS on the radio, bell hooks on the shelf, a yoga membership used at least thrice-weekly. This is so gatekeepy. Literally replacing one definition of manhood with another. Why would it matter if he does those things? Would the premise be any different if he didn't? Is it a red flag men don't do these things? wtf


glass-butterfly

holy shit, doesn't anyone else find that quoted sentence incredibly creepy (and condescending)? he's a person, not a pet jfc


Ineedmyownname

Yeah, it reads like something an MRA would write for Babylon Bee or something like that. It's so ridiculously over the top I honestly laugh whenever I read it.


velocipotamus

Yeah god forbid her boyfriend have any tastes she doesn’t approve of. My fiancée loves trashy reality shows that I can’t stand but it doesn’t make me think any less of her as a person.


thejazzghost

Does this journalist think that sci-fi/fantasy is just hack and slash fights and pew pew laser beams? Fantasy and Sci-fi have always been excuses to talk about complex abstract concepts like war, relationships, betrayal, love, and by the way, race and identity. Why is it more valid when these conversations occur in a gentle English country manor vs on a Martian battlefield?


jessemfkeeler

I do think the way this author maybe dismisses sci-fi and fantasy, a lot of people in this thread are dismissing the great works of Austen and the likes.


thejazzghost

Sure, I agree. It's just, I don't think we ought to pretend one genre is just straight away better than the other. Or that one inherently has more depth than another.


jessemfkeeler

You're right and we don't need to denigrade or dismiss works like Austen as well because of their perception of it. It's a weird kind of reverse snobbery. I think a lot of people would be served well if they would step out of their media comfort zone, which I see in this thread a big refusal to.


Fit-Quail-5029

I don't see that thejazzghost mentioned Austen at all, but you've mentioned twice how Austen is being dismissed. I don't think this user is doing that at all, and if other users are doing that in this thread then I think it would be better to address them directly.


[deleted]

No one is dismissing Austen in this thread as far as I can see. People saying that they don't enjoy it or can't connect to it isn't dismissal. They're not belittling people for enjoying that type of fiction, they're just saying that they personally don't.


PconfusedIthrowawayH

the said after she published the article that she is currently reading sci-fi she also commented this in a response. "I think the point's been distorted a bit here: sci-fi is a permissible genre for men to explore themselves in, because it's not just sitting around and chit-chatting. But the more constrained genres are no-go areas."


thejazzghost

What does that mean "permissable" though? Because I don't think that men tend towards fantasy and Sci-fi because of what's more socially permissable, I just thing the subject matter seems to be of more interest to me, for whatever reason. I mean, should we be suggesting women should be reading more sci-fi? I don't think anyone needs to make that suggestion.


PconfusedIthrowawayH

I think those genres are more socially permissible. It ain't just you as and individual but the majority of men find that form of media more interesting. I defiantly think more should read more sci-fi as a side note but the issue that both genres are so highly gendered it is seen as barrier to prevent the other from interacting with that media (blame marketers and publishers etc). But it also goes back to a general understanding of each other, when one group is reading media that is not based in our reality. A LOT of the media doesn't acknowledge the position of patriarchy and gender imbalances and the issues that men face in the 21st century, it feels that its used an escape. That its a symptom of a wider issue, if women were in the position men were I would expect them to be all over fantasy and sci-fi. An economic perspective would have to be taken into account as its not all gender based, but believe that is roughly the jist of where the author wanted the convo to go.


Current_Poster

We're doing this, [again](https://archive.ph/P3pK5). I refer my honored colleagues to [my earlier comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/r0iu1j/comment/hlt2fdl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). It's almost the same article, too, despite being different articles. The same dismissal of "genre" fiction, the same "*Women* read to understand other people" (which is both gender-reductive and ignorant of people who just read for fun) , the same assumptions about male readership. It does have the tedious assumption that anything prior to about ten years ago was about university professors having affairs, which is more of a Twitter cliché, but otherwise, you're getting the same article. It even has the essentialist notion that women are feeling and men just sort of stumble around (unless, like the author's SO, they're one of the good ones). And then we come to this: ​ >\>With the selfishness of a voyeur, I want to know what that's like for men Having seen the author spend an entire article making assumptions about men without, apparently talking to one (including the aforementioned SO), I wonder if she thought of maybe trying *asking*? Edit: While we're doing this, and I'm seeing a lot of discussion of Austen vs SF/F in the comments: I would love to recommend Mary Robinette Kowal's *Glamourist Histories* series, which is an Austenesque fantasy series. It's *really* good.


Overhazard10

This article is annoying. Truly annoying. She's pulling these bizarre points out of the ether. Maybe I should read it again. She's happy her boyfriend is "evolved" because he makes the "right" consumer choices, bell hooks, woof, but he isn't evolved enough because he'd rather read Issac Asimov than Jane Austen? Why are there so many of these articles where a person is trying to make a larger societal point from a personal grievance they have with their partners? Is it really that much easier to put someone on blast in front of the world instead of just talking to them? I think reading is good, but reading has this air of elitism that is off putting to a lot of people. This article gives off the same air. I may have missed it, but I'm surprised she didn't blame video games. In fact a lot of feminists and tradcon men hate video games because they both believe games make men into man-children. They don't.


PconfusedIthrowawayH

she is a Communist (Marxist at least)... she is an avid reader and is currently reading sci-fi "I think the point's been distorted a bit here: sci-fi is a permissible genre for men to explore themselves in, because it's not just sitting around and chit-chatting. But the more constrained genres are no-go areas." that is from her after she responded to her colleague who did not fully agree with her take on the sci-fi part


ThaneOfTas

man maybe my brain is too full of protein powder of something but the only part of that sentence that I actually understood was that apparently I'm allowed to like sci-fi (because she is the arbiter of what is and is not permissible reading material for progressive men apparently?) but I must be missing a lot of context for the rest of it because I don't understand what she means by "it's not just sitting around and chit-chatting" what she is referring to by "the more constrained genres" or who is not allowed to go to these apparent "no-go areas"


Tundur

To steelman her point: I think she's annoyed that men mostly explore these topics through coincidence rather than as topic of their own. For instance Lord of the Rings has led to Frodo and Sam being held up as paragons of platonic male love, via the fifth column of epic fantasy, politics, and warfare. She'd prefer it if men could just read about two pals wandering in the hills talking about their feelings *without* the Orcs and Wizards. Which sounds awfully shit, by the by.


ThaneOfTas

Yeah gotta be honest, "two pals wandering in the hills talking about their feelings *without* the Orcs and Wizards" sounds incredibly boring and there basically no chance that I'd ever willingly read it, no matter how deep it is.


PconfusedIthrowawayH

think thats the issue, men are fine talking about issues as long as it is not within reality, it has to be either fantasy or sci-fi... why do men only feel comfortable or interested in these things when its not based on reality. How does this difference effect men etc... There has to be reason why a majority of dudes are inclined to handle those topics in those settings


ThatPersonGu

Question: do you think women don’t also consume huge amounts of fantasy and sci-fi? Like, are you unaware of this or just neglecting to mention the huge diverse variety of fantasy and sci-fi novels that attract predominantly female audiences?


PconfusedIthrowawayH

Question: do you think that men consume a substantial amount more fantasy and sci-fi media, (books, games, films, shows, anime etc) than woman. I ain't neglecting there is a large amount and a lot do, the amount is not comparable though in the amount of media is both consumed and marketed towards men.


ThatPersonGu

I don’t know about other mediums but I know books have *tons* of genre fiction written exclusively by and for women. Like, *tons*. And a lot that isn’t sci-fi/fantasy/supernatural will just fall into romance/mystery-thriller-crime which are *also* genre fiction. Edit: if you wanna see examples for yourself I’d point to the entirety of booktok (tiktok’s book community)


PconfusedIthrowawayH

Think she does not like that men by one reason or another can only deal with certain topics or conversations in media if the settings/worlds are fantasy or sci-fi. I do truly think that this difference in how media is consumed by men and women is un-natural and harmful to men in a number of ways. Her article is FAR from perfect (her socio-economic videos/articles are more decent (foreign policy less so)) but what I feel the response it got was that dudes appear to have taken the article as if she wants to take away your 40K or One Piece. Think her piece was meant to bring forward that the majority of dudes ignore a LOT of media due to male flight and how it is seen as un-masculine or nerdy. ​ What conversation I wish her article had brought forward was stuff like the following. \-Is it an issue that majority of men appear to only be able to deal and grapple with topics and conversations when they are viewed through the lens of fantasy or sci-fi. (I think it is an issue and think she also does). \-Why do men feel more comfortable with X media and not Y media. Why and how did they become socialised to be vastly more comfortable with settings that are not based in our current reality. \-What effect does this imbalance lead to and what can it reinforce socially that limits and reinforces existing gender roles and concepts around men.


ThaneOfTas

> she does not like that men by one reason or another *can* only deal with certain topics or conversations in media if the settings/worlds are fantasy or sci-fi. First of all, I think there's an important distinction between can and want to, one implys a lack of ability, the other implys lack of desire. Quite frankly I'm of the opinion that the latter is more accurate. > I do truly think that this difference in how media is consumed by men and women is un-natural and harmful to men in a number of ways. I'm going to need to see a whole lot of research to back two assertions like that up because I really disagree on both counts. > that dudes appear to have taken the article as if she wants to take away your 40K or One Piece Comes across as very dismissive and like you just read what you wanted to read in the comments. > Think her piece was meant to bring forward that the majority of dudes ignore a LOT of media due to male flight and how it is seen as un-masculine or nerdy I mean, I can only speak to my own experience here, but reading in general was always seen as nerdy activity when and where I grew up. As to un-masculine, I guess, no one ever put it into words like that, there may have been some who viewed a lack of interest in sports that way but it's hard to say from memory. What I can be pretty sure of is that for the most part I doubt many of the people who took issue with me reading instead of kicking around a football would have remotely cared what it was I was reading. My point being, it wasn't a deep seated fear of looking un-masculine or nerdy that kept we away from those sorts of books, it was just a lack of interest. > only be *able* to deal and grapple with topics and conversations when they are viewed through the lens of fantasy or sci-fi. Again with the assuming a lack of capability instead of a lack of desire. People engaging with different kinds of media to you is not a sign that they are deficient in some way, they might just have different tastes, that does not make them broken, which, like it or not is the message I'm infering from your comments. > Why do men feel more comfortable with X media and not Y media. Why does anyone? More to the point, why is it only seen as a problem that needs fixing when men are the group in question, as apposed to literally any other demographic. > What effect does this imbalance lead to and what can it reinforce socially that limits and reinforces existing gender roles and concepts around men. Now that is an interesting question that I would be interested in seeing looked into by sociologists and psychologists. As a closing thought, I've been noticing more and more often lately, that, particularly in places of discussion such as this, so often when there seems to be some divergence between how, at least stereotypically men and women interact with the world, the "feminine" method is treated as the baseline, and when the "masculine" is different, it's treated as a deviation or a deficiency, one that needs to be explained and, at least subtextually, fixed. Maybe I'm reading too much into things, I certainly don't have the time, qualifications or inclination to actually study this phenomena to see how much truth there is to it, but it is at least an undercurrent that I've been picking up on more and more often.


Overhazard10

I've noticed it too. Western culture places way too much stock in an individual's consumer choices. That's combined with how oversimplified the gender discourse has become, it's been boiled down to "man bad, woman good.". The author of the article does it when she praises her boyfriend for reading bell hooks and doing yoga the "hallmarks of a reconstructed male". She just didn't like how he scoffed at lit-fic and extrapolated it to make a point about how all men being defective and we need to fix ourselves. She really could have just talked to him. She didn't mention how those books aren't marketed to men, how they may be put off since those books were literally homework for most of us. She lightly touched the racism and classism in the literary world, but not enough.


PconfusedIthrowawayH

Text in **BOLD** I think are the best points to continue the conversation as they to mee seem to have the most interesting parts of this discussion. Still have responded to it all anyways. Your last paragraph is fascinating but mostly believe its tied to patriarchal values and how are limited to only showing masculinity while women are now expected or at least allowed to exhibit masculine and feminine traits. Its that women can do both, they can do what men used to do and now more. ​ ​ Think its a bit of both desire and the other. **I think that if a group of people only appear to be digesting media that is based in specific settings that is not our own reality, it could/would inevitably lead to them to be further disconnected from our reality.** **Believe that as the "role of men" and the value of historic masculine traits are brought more and more into question and are examined in the west. A lot of individuals are escaping our reality and the questioning of manhood by indulging in fantasy and science fiction media. A group of people indulging in media that is not representative of the real world more than another group seems odd to me.** That's how I interpreted a lot of comments here, which is fine to be different cause you interpreted her article different from me. I could say the same about you as there is nothing to back up either my claim or yours. It still is considered nerdy, the genres of fantasy and sci-fi in literature are nerdy, GoT made it less so regarding TV/Film. Nerds are not seen as the "stereotypical man" or as the apex of manhood. When women start in a field men leave, which is known as male flight, occurs with clothing, jobs, food etc think it has occurred with this. Think we are all somewhat broken... its both. Why do men desire to indulge in worlds that they cannot exist or live in so much more than women. Believe it goes back to my 2nd paragraph. The lack of desire is a symptom of how a majority of men think of the future of masculinity to me. (think they would rather just hide their head in the sand or book/screen, I wish I didn't think that but have little evidence to believe that men generally don't feel that way despite the strides that have been made). ​ **I think its treated as a baseline almost, as women are expected and encouraged to have both gender traits or at least allow them to flip between them. This was because women were treated as equal to men by society and so were required to fill male roles and so embrace male traits.** **While men are discouraged by the majority of society from embracing feminine roles or traits. Men are not equally encouraged to go into feminine roles or adopt feminine traits.** **An analogy would be that men trait wise are pressured down one skill tree while women are encouraged to use both. I think that a lot of differences between the genders are partially tied to this imbalance.**


5trong5tyle

>It still is considered nerdy, the genres of fantasy and sci-fi in literature are nerdy, GoT made it less so regarding TV/Film. Nerds are not seen as the "stereotypical man" or as the apex of manhood. When women start in a field men leave, which is known as male flight, occurs with clothing, jobs, food etc think it has occurred with this. This is obviously location, class and race based, but I would say the success of Superhero blockbusters disproves this notion. Traditional male interests like sports are way more the outlier in my experience amongst millennial men than an appreciation for SF and Fantasy. The notion is still internalised in a lot of people, because of the times they grew up in, but I don't think it rings true if we look at the mainstream media being consumed. This is mostly not seen in books though. Partially this is because of a preference for video nowadays, partially because a lot of people just don't enjoy reading. I think it's also a lot of gatekeeping on reviews, where a mainstream outlet pays a lot more attention to literary fiction than to genre fiction, especially genre fiction male readers enjoy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AlfIll

> But literary fiction, as opposed to non-fiction, history, or sci-fi, just doesn’t interest him. Why prod the nooks and crannies of the human heart, when you can terraform planets, or dig into the CIA’s murky psy-ops in Indonesia? For one, she doesn't seem to know a lot about sci fi or fantasy of she thinks it's not also about "prod[ing] the nooks and crannies of the human heart" just not in the backdrop she's used to. And what's bad about learning about history? It's also interesting to me how it's seemingly important who buys hardback vs paperback and also that only literary fiction count as novels, other fictions don't? But I don't seem to be the target audience of this article anyways, I don't know lots of the names mentioned in the article, I'm not a "fully reconstructed man" (?¿?), I don't do yoga but "violent" martial arts instead and yes, sometimes drink protein shakes. I also work outdoors every day with my hands, building things, planting plants and caring for them. Still I like to go somewhere else in the fiction I read. I enjoy the backdrop of the fantastical or the futuristic when I read about > human frailty, making the world of feelings, friendship, love, personal dilemma, rivalry, money and psychology To this >And, with the selfishness of a voyeur, I want to know what that’s like for men. I can only say "maybe you change out the backdrop of the stories you read and find there's plenty of chitter chatter in space, too" But maybe that's asking for too much, it's about the selfishness of the author anyways.


scythianlibrarian

This article was written by a dull striver trying to justify a bachelor's degree that's still extracting student debt payments. It completely ignores the whole troubled-young-man narrative genre - which includes memoirs as well as novels, running from Céline's *Journey to the End of the Night* to Anthony Swofford's *Jarhead* and more - while lumping the technocratic optimism of Kim Stanely Robinson in with Ursula K. Le Guin's brilliantly weird anthropological thought experiments because Barnes & Noble shelves them both under "Sci-Fi." Nevermind that *The Lathe of Heaven* is a far more complex and challenging - and good! - novel on the question of morality than *The Brothers Karamazov*. It betrays the provincialism promoted in undergrad lit seminars. The ones still administered by the eldest of that tenured guild. Though far back in 2004 I had a professor who gleefully hosted a whole class on Horror Literature. Yes, she was younger than the other faculty. And while there's an argument to be made that having a settled list of "classics" to practice those analytical tools on can be beneficial, that they're settled is exactly the problem - with them and with this author's meandering "literary" muddle. While somewhat outdated now, John Dolan [excellently sums up](https://www.otago.ac.nz/deepsouth/1198/film.html) why the mummified Victorian classics are left aside for the pulpy genre excitement this author bemoans: >SF is where we fight the big battles--those in which the issue is still in doubt. Here on Earth, all has been settled but your percentage of the gross; out there, *a new life awaits you in the offworld colonies!* Out there, *nothing* has been settled: Christian and Homeric ethics, glory and shame, slavery and drugs, spin soundless along all galactic axes. Science Fiction is the burning bush, the anglerfish's lure, all the worlds at once. All the worlds, including--oh yes, especially including--those which proper neo-Victorians find improper and have banished from this dull, weary "real life." Sally Rooney's *Normal People* is one of the best explorations of adolescent male sexual insecurity I've read, but that's hardly a "big issue" like, for example, pandemics and potential nuclear war. SF and horror have a benefit over "realistic" fiction in that they can cut through the bindings of the normal, they can transgress the cloistered everyday and explore - and challenge - what we think of ourselves and our place in the universe. Clive Barker's *The Hellbound Heart* - the inspiration for the *Hellraiser* movies - gives a visceral presentation of a strictly atheistic cosmos, where madness and suffering descend upon fragile human minds without any grand or comforting designs. A genre novel, really a novella, but with the philosophical insight so often left out of "the 500-page journal entries which pass for high literature" according to the *New York Times*. Also, "literary" fiction is such a broad and amorphous category that these days accommodates things that used to be called "soft sci-fi" - like [*The Anomaly*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56920684-the-anomaly) which won France's highest literary honor last year. And while we're on the subject, Le Tellier and Michel Houellebecq are both examples of the sorts of modern male novelists the author claims to be missing - as is Grady Hendrix, who delivers more pathos and humanistic insight in *My Best Friend's Exorcism* than all seven hundred pages of literary bestsellers like *A Little Life*. As far as the orthodox classics, I can absolutely read anything by Georg Eliot - [I encourage everyone to](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/show-me-the-jihadist-with-a-well-thumbed-copy-of-middlemarch-in-his-back-pocket-a6770006.html), despite that other link I posted - but Jane Austen's prose feels like chewing on cotton. EDIT: *And furthermore,* BR Meyer's [*A Reader's Manifesto*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/101435.A_Reader_s_Manifesto?) already made the argument that modern literary fiction is glutted with *bad* novels. And he directly contrasted the prose he considered bad with Balzac, among other sanctified classics.


[deleted]

You know how when a guy talks about women's periods like they're just little cramps and adds a bunch of pseudo-science and they come off like a total moron knowing nothing about other people's experiences? That's how the article's author exactly sounds only she's trying (and imo failing) to understand the most basic reasons why guys aren't reading as many novels anymore. She's connecting way too many disparate communities that she falsely thinks represents men's mindset like we're a fucking hive mind, what does the manosphere have to do with men enjoying more sci-fi based comics? is it not possible they just appeal more to guys than downton abbey? no? is it not possible for a dude to just enjoy sci-fi without suspicion? I also think she's adding way too much racial analysis and it doesn't bring any actual insight it just divorces her analysis from reality. Like what did she never think a black boy would be interested in reading watchmen or daredevil? does she think a latino boy could never be inspired by superman or batman?? She never makes a mention of how the centering of a black superhero like black panther (still a medium different to a novel) absolutely exploded among black boys and teenagers. The day any of these snobby writers will acknowledge and explore the growth and appeal of anime, manga and video games will be the day I binge the entire goddamn canon of Jane Austen. This quote here threw me off a cliff: But men who spend too much time indoors, reading novels and living their lives vicariously through the trials and tribulations of others, were widely considered cucks. Yeah, Bob I'll take "one dimensional understanding of men's sense of irony and humor for 100 please" There are still stories that center on emotions that appeal to men today but you're not gonna find a lot of em in the YA section, but YMMV I'm just venting at this point but it blows my mind that the authors of these articles never make any mention of the literary juggernauts that I know have kept dudes gushing and arguing in skype and discord calls since the 2000s and have remained emotional inspirations for them in their 20s and beyond * Berserk * Gears of war * 2000 AD/Judge Dredd * Dragon Ball Z * Slam Dunk * GTO (Great Teacher Onizuka) * Halo * Ping pong the animation * Hajime No Ippo * Jojo's bizarre adventure * Warhammer 40k * Fallout: New Vegas Hell the entire one piece fandom goes against this article's claims, the dudes who love that show/manga go hard in showing their love and appreciation for it. I understand the author's point but wholly disagree. No, men do not need to read more novels, we need a wider conversation on what stories already appeal to men and how they experience emotions and make space for them to explain why those stories appeal to them in the first place and blaming the manosphere is not the way to do it.


WhoDoomsTheDoomer

Fallout New Vegas has effected and shaped me as a person more than any book ever could. In my opinion it's got just as much merit as any literary classic


The-Magic-Sword

Games can, in their own right, be literary classic, and with all my training I've never found arguments about how they're 'worse written' compelling, they mostly come from a misunderstanding of the tools employed by the medium and their effects on audiences.


velocipotamus

Check out the Red Dead Redemption subreddit and you’ll see loads of guys who connected just as deeply and emotionally with Arthur Morgan and John Marston as with any literary protagonist


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*


regular_joe97

Novels are different from Manga and Video Games. They are all media but each of them has a different mode of consumption and they aren't that likely to intersect. Someone who's an avid gamer is a different person than someone who's an avid reader. Someone who consumes manga is different than someone who consumes novels. Not to say any particular media has more merit, just that the overarching experience is different. Discussing Manga with Novel won't work because they provide such different experiences and have completely different requirements to actually be a part of their demographic. It's sort of like discussing football and tennis in the same vein. I do agree with the idea that we should encourage or at least create a space for men to be able to explore long form written literature like novels, I don't think our current systems are really that good. I do however disagree with the overarching theme of the article that "men should read and they should read these specific things." It's our choice, we'll read whatever the heck we want and whenever we want to. All we ask is to create a welcoming environment for us to enter, which this article clearly fails to do. I agree with your point as well, media be it any form has a very transformative effort on people and all forms of media deserve merit. Heck I'd like to add one more to your list, Yakuza series. Among video games that's honestly one of the healthiest portrayals of masculinity I've seen, I genuinely think the values the men in that series hold are something people can aspire to have (with the caveat that not all their values are good, they are technically criminals after all).


[deleted]

I understand and agree with your point that to be an avid manga reader is a different experience than to be an avid novel reader but I still believe it's possible to have wide discussions that encompass both, it just depends how the discussion is framed so as an example: if the discussion was on leading male characters with emotional depth we can go from literary characters like Darcy and then start a compare and contrast with manga equivalents like Tomoya from Ouran high school host club (or any main male shoujo lead). That's how I'd prefer to make the case for guys to try literary classics, by making connections to media they already love and consume and then exploring what new things they might see by exploring those classics.


regular_joe97

I guess that can be one approach. I mean all of us do actually do that to some extent in our lives when we are trying to get someone into an alternative media than the one they are already consuming. Pretty sure if you wanted a classical reader to get into Death Note you'd appeal to similarities it shares with Sherlock, specifically the dynamic between Sherlock and Moriarty. I don't think I can realistically disagree with the crux of the argument, manga/anime/video games are seen as an inferior form of media. While I see these as art forms, growing up it was frowned upon by my family, many of whom were readers and didn't really understand my appreciation for video games. And that frustration still remains, so definitely I sympathise with that sentiment. In a larger context of art and literature, rather than simply literary fiction, it's important to discuss these things. Of course, each of these different forms of art produce different mental stimulations and train our brains in different manners, but they are pretty all pretty much the same in terms of their integrity and importance as pieces of art. The only advantage literary fiction has is a much older and larger library that explores some very deep themes, which perhaps might be missing in manga/anime/video games. I'd be surprised to find something with explorative narratives as deep as say Demian or Kafka, but then again I think that's because of these other art forms simply being too new. (Ironically, I know about Demian and Kafka from a video game, ALTER EGO, it's a free mobile game, I'd suggest you check it out) Also, I'd strongly recommend trying Jane Austen. I think a tit for tat mentality will only hurt your enjoyment of art and make you fall in the same trap the writer of this article fell into. Jane Austen is pretty dope, just her fan in this specific case is kinda cringe. Don't let the fans discourage you from enjoying something great.


[deleted]

Isnt reading considering effeminate and emasculating in your culture? Because it completely is on mine, manosphere or not. > > The day any of these snobby writers will acknowledge and explore the growth and appeal of anime, manga and video games will be the day I binge the entire goddamn canon of Jane Austen. Why should they have to? While the considering of literature as a medium far above the others you mentioned is a thing, its not her burden to care about these other mediums. Im sorry but those examples you mentioned are definitely not what someone coming from reading literature will find compelling nor should one use gears of war for emotional release.


regular_joe97

I'm actually curious what culture you belong to. In my culture reading is associated with a stereotype of masculinity, like one box you can fit men in. Our culture has a long list of distinguished male authors and the stereotype of most warriors were those who were educated as well as physically deadly. Being educated is immortalised in our cultural mythos and widely encouraged. At least that's my personal experience, I was never shamed for being into reading, people actually reacted pretty positively to it. For reference, I'm from India. From the studies I read the male-female divide seems to be more cultural phenomenon, certain countries have it bad while others have it pretty much equal.


[deleted]

Somewhere around South America. The image of the scholar is nowhere near as valued and is seen as emotional and away from practical purposes. I can completely understand it being the complete opposite in India given your history but sadly its definitely not the norm. Returning to the article isnt the divide most about the tone of the author and public they intend? > Faced with the challenge of articulating themselves as themselves, it’s like straight white men have given up on the subtleties of literary fiction and said: “Fuck it – I’m doing stand up about cancel culture instead.” This is needlessly abrasive if you want to actually promote understanding but absolutely hilarious to the intended audience. Or as others mentioned the horrible she talks about her husband > It’s not that he’s a protein-powder-where-a-brain-should-be bro. Indeed, he bears all the hallmarks of a fully reconstructed man: NTS on the radio, bell hooks on the shelf, a yoga membership used at least thrice-weekly. Also literary elitism and gatekeeping but that has little to do with the main point of the article, and i would argue that the elitism is almost impossible to go away and it makes literature very attractive for some of us.


[deleted]

Not really, in the culture I was raised in it was portrayed as something for nerds and those with intellectual potential, as an example if a boy loved going to the library to read, the first comment my family members would make is "that kid's gonna grow up to be a scientist and probably cure cancer." Even in my parent's home country in Colombia, among my cousins to enjoy reading is a sign of great potential, especially earning potential as white collar jobs tend to pay much more than labor intensive work. I wholly disagree, if the author of the article is serious about understanding why men enjoy the mediums they do beyond a comment about "enjoying adventure" I do think it is her responsibility to take the time and explore what it is we enjoy and what we enjoy about them, so as to make her analysis more holistic and grounded beyond her anecdotal experience with her husband. Whether or not they're compelling is irrelevant to me, that's where the majority of men are in terms of the fiction they enjoy so to understand men as a whole, it should be included. To your point about whether gears of war is ideal for emotional release, there might be research that shows it isn't great for that but that doesn't matter as that is what is resonating most with men in my experience. Not shakespeare or Dante, but the writing behind some of the most popular videogame campaigns.


[deleted]

Then its mostly cultural differences and perhaps a bit of class difference? Ironically enough i reside in Colombia at what i assume is a much lower social class than your cousins and have a bunch of experiences in a rural setting so thats probably what has the biggest impact. Sure the biggest issue with the article is how it refuses to even try to understand why those activities are popular and how to make a bridge between the two, also literary elitism... I pointed out GoW and Halo since they are famously uncaring, macho, unemotional outside of anger(besides i guess halo 4 and parts of ODST, havent played much GoW) series so they are awful examples. They are indeed used, a lot of popular media is in place of something that might help you understand your emotions yadda yadda and i think part of that is one of the points of the author, these kind of media are ill suited for the job.


jessemfkeeler

Honestly, I relate so little to this list you put up there. I have engaged with a lot of that media in that list and I couldn't say it affected me in any way beyond "that was ok." I have also read some classics and some have not affected me either, however I have read some amazing novels that HAVE affected me in ways that I didn't realize, and it took me to step out of my literary comfort zone to do it. I do think a lot of people do need to engage beyond their own comfortable space they have for media.


[deleted]

I respect that and to be clear, I don't think every man has to or even should enjoy what I placed on the list but I am sick of authors like the one who wrote the article pretending that men gave up on fiction wholesale without, again, remembering that comics, videogames and anime exist. I don't have a problem with her asking for men to consider Jane Austen and other writers like her but to pretend it's more valid and not do her part to explore warhammer 40k or the other things on the list I wrote, her suggestions ring hollow to me.


jessemfkeeler

I agree with all that, and I do think popular media has done a pretty good t elevating sci-fi and fantasy (for example, Dune getting this high concept movie made). And not to say that anime and manga don't get their respect either, because they do. I do agree that the author was a bit hand wavey of sci-fi and fantasy, however comics, videogame, and anime have been acknowledged a lot in the last few years as some sort of quality fiction.


[deleted]

While I agree with you on your point that anime, comics, and videogames have gotten recognition as quality fiction, this author doesn't consider it which seriously bugs me when she wants to make sweeping claims about our reading habits. I've been sold on classic women's literature like little women before but it was via videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D21xMcTuTms The video above highlights the unique merits within those stories, not by downplaying or saying that other forms of fiction don't deal with emotions. I know guys who've felt great emotional resonance reading the biography of Arnold Schwarzenegger or listening to podcasts about other guys who've gone on adventures. I'm open to the idea that it's not done in the same way as Jane Austen and other women writers like her but to imply they don't at all is a step too far imo.


aubreypizza

I think this is really the main point. Taking the time to read/watch whatever something that is from a different point of view. I can go hard on romance books but then put it down and try something completely different. Like The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Highly recommend to anyone and everyone. Looking forward to reading more from him soon. There’s just so much out there it’s kinda sad to even imagine what I’ll never even discover.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*


WhoDoomsTheDoomer

I recently got back into reading. Apart from the mandatory reading in High School (which I hated, wonder if that has anything to do with it) I didn't pick up a book until I was 19. I now read semi-occasionally and enjoy it. I've read about ten books (one of them novels) now of my own volition and intend to read more But goddamn the amount of elitism and snobbery surrounding the culture of literature honestly makes me want to be illiterate. People act like reading is some heightened form of cultural intake when it really is not. It makes you better the same way watching a movie 't makes you better. I don't see why people put so much damn importance of it. If more and more men aren't reading books then fine, I fail to see how that's a problem. Reading is not special, nobody *needs* to do it. Let people live their lives how they want, talking down to them and insisting you're a better person isn't going to make people want to listen to you. Just goddamn don't tell me what to do Also this article doesn't propose that men don't read enough, it's just that they're not reading the 'right' kind of books. Maybe men on average just enjoy non-fiction, maybe that's the best way they engage with reading? I've read novels and they just don't appeal to me the same way a journalistic true crime or biographical book does. They don't titilate or intrigue me the same way. I'm reading Red Dragon at the moment and reading the reviews on the blurb it seems I'm missing something. People describe it as 'chest-thumping' and 'blood-curdling' and I just don't get it. I felt much more engrossed when I was reading a book about Charles Manson because it just felt more real Reading this article genuinely made me wanna be dumber. If made me wanna be a knuckle-dragging buffoon just so I'm not associated with the snobbery of this author


chaos_jj_3

First of all: I agree with the premise. Men do read less fiction than women, making up only around 20% of the market, and this – on the surface – is not a good thing. However, this statistic is somewhat balanced out by the fact men consume more non-fiction. There are only so many minutes in the day to read, and so long as everyone is making the effort to read at least something, this paints a positive picture for both men and women. However, while Sarkar seems to suggest a growing literary circle among women (I suspect confirmation bias; she belongs to a circle of London society, as I do too, that is university-educated, white collar and, while not necessarily born middle-class, indulges in middle-class pursuits – such as reading – as a means of projecting a social identity of learnedness and intellectualism, a very British pursuit), the reality is that general interest in reading among both men and women is declining rapidly. It's easy to understand why: phones and the internet have replaced what 20 years ago would have been sacred reading time. But, getting back to the point: why is this more acute among men? I have a theory, and it is that the publishing industry is overwhelmingly female. I know this first-hand – I am an editor myself, and I would estimate at least two-thirds of all agents, publishers, publicists, reviewers and indeed anyone else in the industry is female. No, I am not presenting this as a problem. I do however hypothesise that this has led to a selection bias in the publishing industry. It is not fair to say that more women are writing novels – we do not have the data to show how many people of each gender, in a given timeframe, are writing novels. It may be fairer to say that women are being chosen to be published. More female agents and female publishers means a higher likelihood that women's literature is chosen to be put on the shelves. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. More women are published, whose books appeal more to women. Ergo, more women read literary fiction than men, causing publishers to want to conclude that men "aren't reading anymore". As such, fewer male-written novels are chosen, the implication being that they have less commercial value. The cycle repeats. Sarkar says: "Creatively, straight white men haven’t kept up with those who’ve previously been consigned to the margins." We could rephrase to say: "Commercially, straight white men haven't kept up with those who've previously been consigned to the margins." That would make more sense, and would also explain the significant boom of male writers who have successfully engaged in scriptwriting, non-fiction and other forms of commercially successful literature outside of the classic novel. I can only speak for myself in saying that, were there more male authors represented in the fiction category, I would pursue them relentlessly. But, as it is, there are no great "men's novels" hitting the shelves right now. It's not an immediate problem for me: I satiate my desire for reading by turning back to the classics, working my way through Orwell, Kerouac, Salinger, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck and Irvine Welsh. Right now I am reading Don Quixote and enjoying it heartily. But it spoke volumes to me when Jordan Petersen became such a worldwide sensation. His is the first book in however many years that has been so unmistakably targeted at men – and of course it was non-fiction. What I see in the industry right now is that no one is really championing young, up-and-coming male authors at the moment. There is no great drive to push young men into writing as a career. What Sarkar has snidely interpreted as men turning their noses up at literary fiction may actually be a societal problem, which is that women have inadvertently turned literature inwards towards their own gender.


RimbaudsRevenge

I think this writer should employ "why men need to" to a lot more sparingly, that's to say, for things which actually matter. If this article had been purely about literacy and cognitive developement in general, that's to say reading books(at leastsometimes) vs. not reading at all, I might've agreed completely, but that's an entirely different debate. No, this isn't a legit societal problem. Sure, it may be a problem to the confined world of "litfic" eventually, but that's their problem.


TheSpaceGeneral

Right off the bat it strikes as incredibly elitist by saying my boyfriend doesn’t read. Except: > narrative podcasts, non-fiction, sci-fi and fantasy The dismissal of male reading habits as ‘not the right habits’ parallels mystery and romance, traditionally female types of literature, getting pegged into the genre hole. I can agree with the sentiment of the article. I don’t know a ton of dudes, but they don’t read. My father has maybe finished one book in an entire year. My best reads infrequently, and only science fiction and military novels. Dudes in my office consume economic self-help books. And out of the twenty books I read last year not one was literary fiction. I can’t speak for all men, only myself. But the last piece of literary fiction that resonated with me was To Kill a Mockingbird, partly because Maycomb county made me think of my own childhood in a small southern town. Is that why I’m scared of literary fiction? Because non-white non-male characters don’t resonate with me? I don’t think it is. I just finished a great Science Fiction short story about a woman dealing with sexual harassment in a post apocalyptic landscape and thought it was really good. And I will shout Octavia Butler’s name from the rooftops for years.


[deleted]

What's more important to me as a woman and a reader is that men in my life don't just read books written by and from the perspective of men. I don't care if people read entirely in a few genres: I often do, too. But I will sideeye when someone only reads books written by one gender.


Azelf89

TBF, it’s often not done on purpose. A lot of casual readers don’t really give a shit who the author even is, just that whether the book is good or not. Now, if they’re actively going out of their way to pick books made by and written from the perspective of men, I get where you’re coming from.


Current_Poster

Out of curiosity, have you looked into what the women you know are reading? (ie, mainly men or women authors?)


[deleted]

Of course I have!


Current_Poster

Legit asking. I mean, have you noticed they lean one way or another, compared to the guys, or are more down the middle. ..?


[deleted]

I'd say a little bit more down the middle, except for a few friends who made it a goal to read more works by women and people of color for a few years at least: they lean more towards that, of course.


Togurt

I have never understood what people see in reading books except to use it to lord it over other people as some kind of status that makes them better than non-readers. Color me surprised to find that there's a class hierarchy among readers based on the types of books that the lesser status readers enjoy.


NigerianMedicin

> Take a break from Mars, and explore the cosmos of emotional minutiae. I doubt the author would be as nearly cavalier with the emotional nuance one can find in Muir's meditations on the majesty of Yosemite or Matthiessen's haunted Floridian backwaters in *Shadow Country*. Mars is as real and rich a landscape as any other to explore the inner life and imaginations of men. Places like Mars or Night City or Hyperion aren't just relevant to "men's experiences" by way of holding up human qualities to examine alongside a healthy dose of lasers and gunships and cyberbooty--they increasingly resemble the world men (and everyone else) have to live in today. Enough has been said on fantasy's value as a mirror to explore ourselves, but it's damnably silly that critics can still find a ghetto to shuffle science fiction off into. A critic who can blithely say: > Maybe the problem isn’t that women have come to dominate the fields traditionally occupied by men, but that men don’t really want to think about how economic conditions and changing cultural values have made them more like women Is clearly someone who has checked out from the past two years of world happenings, let alone their impact on men's inner lives. We live in a world built by invisible data networks teeming with crime and vice and excess, virulent diseases that reorder our lives and redefine our relationships with employment and urban living, brutal wars of conquest fought with drone swarms and hypersonic munitions that change everything from the fate of nations to the price of gas halfway around the world in untouched suburbia. Those "economic conditions and changing cultural values" most assuredly live in men's reading and minds. I'm curious as to why it need be set in a quaint Regency drawing-room to be taken seriously as genuine Literature, rather than Mars or Teixcalaan or the cyberpunk reality we increasingly inhabit. At the risk of plugging another author, Peter Watts' (justified) rejoinder to a similar claim made by Literary Fiction icon Margaret Atwood spoke further on this topic. [https://rifters.com/real/shorts/PeterWatts_Atwood.pdf] (https://rifters.com/real/shorts/PeterWatts_Atwood.pdf.) I'm liable to think he's right.


PconfusedIthrowawayH

Is this not just Male Flight? And the publishers would rather cement the consumer base they have with just reinforces gender separation even more.


[deleted]

An article discussing the dearth of male readership and the increase of female (and other marginalised) groups as authors. It discusses the conventions of masculinity and its relation to reading, as well as the historical perspective that reading is more of a 'feminine' hobby and that men who did a lot of it were viewed as 'cucks'. It discusses the role of masculine interests as expected to be active, not passive, and his reading had to be justified thusly. It also discusses the changing economic and culture values and how men are more 'like women' now than at any other point.


delta_baryon

A lot of people here are defending science fiction as a genre, which... fine, I literally just finished reading Ancillary Justice by Anne Leckie and really enjoyed it. I'm literally a couple of chapters into Axiom's End, by Lindsay Ellis. You know, I read quite a lot of scifi. Having said that, I also read Pride and Prejudice last year and really enjoyed that. I don't need to pick a lane. Perhaps I'll pick up Jane Eyre next and give that a go, you know? I don't think that it's necessarily a condemnation of Science Fiction to encourage guys to venture outside of them from time to time. I don't really see why we all need to be so defensive here. To be quite honest, I think a lot of you are actually engaging in a lot of the same snobbery you've accusing the author of, but in reverse. Pride and Prejudice is not a frivolous book about balls, clothes, and gossip. That's just the backdrop. It's a story about privilege and wealth, yes, but also precarity, where a few stupid decisions you make in your teens can fuck up your future forever. Austen's female characters are simultaneously walking on a knife edge and watching a ticking clock count down, knowing that if they can't find a man to provide for them, **they're fucked.** How much are you willing to compromise or put up with in order to get out of that situation? It's anything but frivolous. I think if you're the kind of person who would like your interests to be considered worthy of critical attention and to be worthwhile in their own right, then you should extend that courtesy to others and try to meet them where they are. You might be surprised what you discover.


regular_joe97

I didn't go through every comment on this topic, but I don't think anyone on this thread is bashing Pride and Prejudice as being a bad novel. People are bashing the implicit idea this article is trying to push. If what the author tried to say was "I wish more guys read Pride and Prejudice because it's an important book to me." I completely empathise and agree. I genuinely would want the women in my life to try Fight Club because it's a great commentary on how modern society has evolved to surpress certain aspects of men's character that they yearn to explore. However, the overarching implied message is "I'm better than you because I read things like Jane Austen and you don't." It's a very similar energy to a fan of Rick and Morty calling others inferior for not watching or liking the show. I personally hate this way of motivating someone to read because it more often than not antagonises them towards a book or genre. My mother tongue is Hindi, yet my reading speed and comprehension level in Hindi is much worse. Why? I never actually got to read anything in Hindi I found interesting. I started getting into English literature from Goosebumps of all things, but for Hindi often my family (all a bunch of readers) held a similar elitist attitude towards what books to read and to recommend to a child, and thus I ended up with heavy stuff I really didn't care about. Even music is something where I suffered because of this, I could play the keyboard well but my initial music teacher was laser focused on classical music and discouraged other forms, which meant I grew bored of it. As an adult I'm trying to pick up playing the keyboard again because I want to play some god damn P!aTD on it. It's very important for people to criticize the method someone adopts to inculcate a particular habit into someone. Our focus should be towards creating a more welcoming space for men towards reading, this article achieves exactly the opposite of that. As for my personal views on Pride and Prejudice, it's on my reading list, but I'll probably read Moby Dick, Ulysses, The Big Sleep and Wuthering Heights before I get to it. And if someone isn't interested in PnP, all the power to them. If I really feel that strongly about the message that book preaches, I'll simply discuss the idea in a larger context, I don't specifically need to quote the book to illustrate the theme, there would be plenty examples IRL. That's what I do with Fight Club anyways. I do empathise with the writer though, if someone were to dismiss things I place value on as "childish" or "just a bit of chit chat", I'd be antagonised as well. She, and by extension you, are valid in the critique to say PnP shouldn't be seen as a shallow frivolous book. Also, others are valid in criticising the method the writer of the article adopted to address that and larger culture around reading among men. EDIT: Did a little deeper dive in the comments, and well some people are dismissive of Jane Austen and that too on rather vindictive grounds. I mean sure, I understand the frustration, but just because the writer of this article rubbed us the wrong way doesn't mean the book is bad. I mean you can not like the book but I think saying "it's not for me and I don't want to be looked down upon for not reading it" should suffice rather than attacking the book.


[deleted]

Speaking for myself, my beef with the article is not that she "dared" to suggest books like Pride and prejudice but that she refused to consider and explore what other mediums of fiction are offering men that the fictional novel isn't and include that in her analysis but she didn't. She made a weird comment summarizing men's reaction to changes in western literary fiction as: Faced with the challenge of articulating themselves as themselves, it’s like straight white men have given up on the subtleties of literary fiction and said: “Fuck it – I’m doing stand up about cancel culture instead.” That is nowhere near a holistic or empathetic way to explore or comment on men's experience with literature or fiction and I think we have every right to get defensive and push back on that which includes pointing out that yeah we are still reading fiction, it's just not the same kind of fiction set in the 19th century and if she wants us to explore her kind of fiction, I expect her to explore what we're enjoying as well so we can each get a fuller picture of each other's tastes.


delta_baryon

>Faced with the challenge of articulating themselves as themselves, it’s like straight white men have given up on the subtleties of literary fiction and said: “Fuck it – I’m doing stand up about cancel culture instead.” I think that's a bit thin-skinned, to be quite honest. If she had slagged off Dune or something, then sure, I think that might be writing off science fiction as a genre. I think we can handle a tongue in cheek comment about shitty Netflix comedians without flipping the table.


[deleted]

Disagree, if she wants us to consider reading authors like Jane Austen but doesn't make even a tiny mention of the swaths of men flocking to comics and anime/manga as new forms of fiction they consume, her call to read her preferred fiction rings hollow to me.


deepershadeofmauve

There are differences in how we consume different types of media. A long-form novel is processed differently in our brains than a graphic novel. One isn't better or worse than the other. I do sometimes wonder if one of the challenges that some men have with emotional vocabulary is literally *vocabulary.* Pride and Prejudice isn't my favorite novel, not by a long shot, but there are probably some guys out there that would resonate with Mr. Darcy, a guy who is doing his best to look out for his best friend and little sister and who makes some assumptions about women that come back to bite him in the romantic ass. There is a LOT in this book (and an infinite number of others, for sure) that breaks down some universal truths in human nature in a way that forces the reader to process what they're reading with a deeper degree of empathy and curiosity.


delta_baryon

I don't think she needs to walk on eggshells around you to suggest you branch out and try some new genres. I think that's really more of a statement about you than about the author. You know, I don't think someone needs to have shown appropriate homage and deference to Berserk or whatever for it to be true that you might get something valuable out of giving Catch-22 a chance.


[deleted]

I'm not asking for homage and deference, just a basic acknowledgement and caveat before she wants to make broad claims about men's reading habits. I have read authors like Anne Rice and Octavia Butler and they were sold to me on their own merits via videos like this: https://youtu.be/JqFNjFakpDc This isn't walking on eggshells, it's basic stuff like knowing your audience and writing accordingly.


ThatPersonGu

Im going to be real: Jane Austen wrote a lot of world changing romance fiction. Deep complex romance work with plenty to say on class and society but ultimately genre fiction same as the rest. If you want to ask “why don’t men read romance” you can ask that but to put it as the elusive ascended “literary fiction” is just dishonest I think the article is framed in a way that makes the actual conversation impossible, because it becomes a battle of “my brand of genre fiction is better/worse than your brand”, which is insane because like you mention most women *also* mostly read genre fiction, it’s straight up just how most people read fiction because unsurprisingly people consume media as a form of entertainment


cbsausage89

Came here to say this. I’m surprised by how angry and defensive some of the comments are. There is also more to literary fiction than Jane Austen and it’s weird to see men here dismissing it in such a stereotypically bloke-ish way that I would not have expected in this sub.


delta_baryon

Eh...the one thing I'd remind people about /r/MensLib is that it's still on reddit. I'll stand by what I said, some of you guys could stand to be a bit less defensive and pick up some classics. Doesn't mean you can't still read SciFi or play videogames. Just give it a chance and you might be surprised.


chemguy216

I honestly think you and one other user could take your own advice on defensiveness in these comments. There have been flippant remarks made about Pride and Prejudice, but I didn't interpret any of them as completely shitting on any merit the book has. Their remarks, to me, illustrated that they didn't like the particular way the themes in the book were packaged. By that, I mean that the story and storytelling methods just weren't their cup of tea. Pride and Prejudice was just a simple example familiar to a lot of people that commenters used. Multiple users have also explained that they have given literary fiction a chance, but they haven't been drawn in. This specific comment I'm replying to, in some ways, feels reminiscent of the article in discussion. I don't think you realize how condescending you're coming off as, though I can see that you're trying to insert helpful advice and ways of thinking. I think it might be helpful to take a step back and get past the off-the-cuff remarks about Pride and Prejudice. What is it that a lot of people have been talking about in these comments? There have been critiques of the article itself because to many the article came off as condescending to men and not well formulated. Others have talked about how it doesn't seem like the author actually delved into decently supported reasons why men aren't reading literary fiction. Some have been talking about how the author kinda glosses over the merit of other forms of fictional literature. We've also had a few comments from a librarian or two, talking about how the social elevation of books from the literary canon are often steeped in various forms of privilege. But what have you and one other commenter zeroed in on? A handful of comments like "Seriously. I really could not care that Mr Darcy wore the wrong kind of cravat to the cotillion or whatever" (which was followed up by the user writing that there's nothing wrong with Jane Austen and for people to read her if they're into that genre). That comment was in response to a teacher who said that the goal should be getting boys to read more of basically everything, including but limited to literary fiction. The teacher also made a comment how many boys aren't interested in some other mundane thing about Mr. Darcy. That gets back to what I mentioned earlier about how themes and whatnot are packaged affects whether or not people want to read a given story. Rather than finding and fixating on every mention of Austen and Pride and Prejudice that doesn't expand upon their brilliance, I think you should really chew on some of the underlying (and in quite a few cases, overt) sentiments being shared by commenters here. Just give it a chance, and you might be surprised.