Gender disparity in reading

[Anonymous No.15698509]

Why does this happen https://www.pnas.org/content/116/31/15435

[Anonymous No.15698684]

>>15698509
it just says the few girls good at math are even better at reading, which might explain why they choose arts and letters and end up misrepresented in STEM fields.
sounds reasonable.

what's your point?

[Anonymous No.15698694]

http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

[Anonymous No.15698737]

I'm not clicking some link to a page you're hyping up for ad revenue. I'm also male, maybe that's why.

[Anonymous No.15698811]

this wouldn't have happened if 300 had the spartans reading and discussing philosophy

[Anonymous No.15698829]

none of this means anything
When was the last time a woman wrote a great book? I honestly can’t think of anything more recent than Le Guinn or Paglia unless you count Harry Potter. The “reading skill” (ability to undergo standardized testing at age 15) of women is probably related to the sheer volume of YA dreck and propaganda that is foisted upon them by public schooling and results in nothing more auspicious than communities of rapidly aging booktubers

[Anonymous No.15698839]

>>15698509
i'd have responded if you hadn't posted that witch's pic

[Anonymous No.15698871]

[Anonymous No.15699432]

Because women are smarter

[Anonymous No.15699483]

Here's a genuine question, there has been great women authors, Austen, Bronte sisters, Woolf etc. But the most modern of these is nearly 100 years ago. How the fuck did women end up dominating the writing scene and somehow make literally fuck all of canonical worth?

[Anonymous No.15699486]

>>15698509
I don't know where all these "girls are outperforming boys" studies are coming from, because that sure as hell wasn't my experience in high school.

[Anonymous No.15699517]

>problematic
Study discarded.

[Anonymous No.15699587]

>>15699486
Your personal experience isn't data and depending on how old you are your HS experience may be outdated.

[Anonymous No.15699596]

>>15699486
I'm way too lazy to look this up but I'm pretty sure most humanities students at high end universities are female. Most of my upper division classes were 80-90 percent women

[Anonymous No.15699601]

>>15699587
>Your personal experience isn't data
It could've been if they bothered to record it

[Anonymous No.15699633]

>>15699483
they had time + suffering
a woman who does not have to work e.g. in an office has time, but in 21st america they probably have a decent overall life, have a family (and feel no need to dedicate themselves to a work of writing). also writing good fiction in general is outdated.

[Anonymous No.15699729]

>>15699483
Because women never learn the importance of language. Great writers have often been philologists, philosophers, or linguists. What trials do modern women face? They grow up pampered, beloved and popular on looks and smiles alone. They never learn the value of their words because they don't have to learn the value of their words; listen to women speak, they are often dopey and tactless, because they know they will be scaffolded by society in that measure.

Why would boys want to read? Boys look outward to the world, whilst women look inward for meaning; boys would rather find joy in camaraderie than intellectually fellate themselves. The painful truth women have to shoulder is that boys aren't any less astute in this practice; show a boy and a girl a novel, and they will find their own insights. Sometimes boys find more profound insights, but not the words to voice them, because they aren't groomed into writing honeyed essays to fill their feminists teacher's faces with joy and adoration.

The entire education system is heavily propped up on opinions derived from appearances and subservience; good students are behaved students, and the bad, they're the ugly, the miscreants, the discussers, and the talkers. It alienates those people, even though they may have something equal or of greater value to offer.

I was a teacher. I saw this all too many times. The kind of character drawn into teaching is often not one drawn for good reasons, but rather, a reason that can make their spite seem just.

[Anonymous No.15700292]

Brehs

[Anonymous No.15700324]

>>15698509
>girls generally better at reading
>boys generally better at math
>high iq girls that are as good at math as boys are tremendously good at reading
>high iq boys that are as good at reading as girls are tremendously good at math

How do you not get this?

[Anonymous No.15700588]

>>15698509
Much more women read than men; women also read more than men do. Girls (at least in the countries from which the data is collected) have developed higher-level reading skills than boys of the same age.
This is all true, but it remains that men are better readers than women, because positivist studies fail to account for the qualitative difference between the content of women's and men's reading practices.

For one, the difference between the amount read by men and women is very much attributable to the immense piles and piles of YA genre fiction, airport potboilers, vapid self-help, and other trash produced by the publishing industry every year. The corollary to "women are the audience of most books" is not only that "women are the audience of most awful books", but also that "awful books are written and advertised *specifically for* women". If men were to comprise the majority of consumers in the market, the types of books being published would look different. Women have been attracted to vapid and shallow media since time immemorial, and this is confirmed by looking at any particular medium.
Of course, most of the men who read also read trash. (It's simply the case that the vast majority of normies have awful taste in everything.) However, because more women read than men, we can confidently say that the bulk of literary trash is produced for and consumed by women.

A second perspective would be that, among the top 1% of male readers and the top 1% of female readers, men easily overpower women on every metric. The most well-read people in the world — the people most familiar with philosophy, history, the literary canon, etc. — happen to all be men. Female academics are inherently less curious than male academics, and tend to have less discriminating taste. The 1% of female readers care far, far less about challenging themselves than the top 1% of men do.

These are just a couple of things that studies on literacy are unable to apprehend, because they're qualitative observations about the social world, rather than quantitative metrics.

[Anonymous No.15700732]

>>15700292

[Anonymous No.15700918]

>>15698509
>Know people that have toiled away for years on rigorous scientific problems
>Submit pristine manuscript to pnas after countless hours of scrutinizing
>Rejected every time
>Analyze data from some standardized test
>Dress it up with some flowery language that kowtows to acceptable academic dogma and makes for nice headline
>Congrats anon, welcome to national academy

[Anonymous No.15700926]

>>15700292
>>15700732
Not cool guys

[Anonymous No.15700997]

>>15700926
Look at the coloring

[Anonymous No.15701024]

has she ever talked about 4chan yet

[Anonymous No.15701067]

>>15698509
I thought this was generally well known, girls are generally better at all subjects, boys are just autistic so they concentrate on math and science

[Anonymous No.15701070]

>>15698684
>which might explain why they choose arts and letters and end up misrepresented in STEM fields.

Girls just dont like STEM.

[Anonymous No.15701130]

It's almost as if our species has sexual dimorphism.

[Anonymous No.15701505]

>>15701130
Is that why kat's feet is so cummable

[Anonymous No.15702211]

>>15700926
but have you tried conceptualizing the aroma?

[Anonymous No.15702221]

>>15698509
What do you expect for a hobby in which you sit on your ass and stare at letters. Men do the same thing, except they prefer pictures. It would surprise me if it was different.

[Anonymous No.15702272]

>>15698871
Goldfinch was good though

[Anonymous No.15702305]

>>15702211
I imagine it smells like a sweet banana.

[Anonymous No.15702936]

>>15699486
Girls do their work as assigned. Boys do not, even if they're good at the subject. In the end, girls get higher grades than boys.

[Anonymous No.15703080]

>>15702936
Yeah this is true, so many girls in my history courses only took it as an elective ended up doing better than most us guys who were majoring in it. They would have their highlighters, post-it notes and all that jazz. But you couldn't hold a conversation on history with them.

[Anonymous No.15704040]

>>15703080
You got it. Women are not "smarter" than men. They're just easier to manage.

[Anonymous No.15704078]

>>15698829
Virginia Woolf wrote To The Lighthouse, dummy. But she was lesbian or bisexual so she wasn’t a typical woman.

[Anonymous No.15704093]

>>15698509
every iteration of this thread, that is to say, "why are women x and men y," is just men trying to figure out why women are happier than they are despite everything. can we please talk about something else?

[Anonymous No.15704139]

>>15701070
This and mainly this. When I began my degree (mathematics) we where about 55% male 45% female but just after two semesters it was 70%/30%.