Female reading habbits

[Anonymous No.23247984]

Why are female so incurious about abstract things?
Theres a 90% chance of, if you know someone who is reading a book about philosophy, history, math etc, 90% of chance he is a male
Not only women only read fiction, they seem to read disproportionally fiction about love and romance and erotic/sex stuff, with occasional readings of mystery/horror/crime stuff
And not only they read these, but they gravitate towards the most formulaic, bland and generic among them. They dont read Agatha Christie for thrillers or Jane Austen for romance (ok they kinda read Austen sometimes but they put her on the same sentence with the tiktok promoted romance slop of the week written by a - probably hiding a male author - pseudonymous)
Why?
Its not a new thing either. Flaubert mocked it. It probably started in medieval or early modern times
Men do read more super hero comic books and thats not new either, its been like that ever since the beggining of the last century. But they also are mostly the ones who read the serious, beautiful, thought provoking stuff
Women dont. Their interests seem to be confined to love with the occasional mystery, all of the worst quality
Oh, I forgot about sentimental and bad poetry but lets keep to fiction

[Anonymous No.23248173]

Women read philosophy and history, though. They just don't vibe with the ultimately male dominated Western cannon. Just like you don't vibe with gender theory. You might need to spend more time among the actual average man, not just the college educated. They're very bitter about abstraction, and are very literal in their thinking, painfully so.
But unlike women, they're also incapable of empathy, so not much to get out of books for them.
Now this doesn't disprove your argument, but I don't like how you're going about it.
The argument, ultimately is, why is it only men that are capable of advanced abstractions. Probably the same reason men dominate both extremes of the IQ curve, and any other behavioral curve.

[Anonymous No.23248189]

>>23248173
Self-sacrifice > iq.

You can read a book, as op mentioned, and get nothing out of it. The goal is what you sacrifice yourself into. We all sacrifice ourselves into social models to get along with people but to sacrifice yourself into abstract virtues, which are models/objects, takes an effort based on older models used. Jesus is the king of self-sacrifice in this manner. We just have to emulate him and then we can speak about abstract virtues. That's how you raise kids too. Teach them how to self sacrifice and what into.

[Anonymous No.23248228]

>>23248173
>But unlike women, they're also incapable of empathy
This is possibly the biggest meme in history. They are honest when they say that they don't understand you. Women, however, are more likely to pretend to understand others or delude themselves into thinking they do becquse they have some essential female empathy receptor or whatever. In my experience, women rarely if ever admit to their own ignorance about others. They are more or just as likely to accuse the people who aren't fulfilling the image they have of them in their head of "overthinking". They never seem to try and understand what another person, especially if he's a man, thinks or feels. They think that men are simply pure victims of their environment (which the erroneously all believe without thinking, is a patriarchy) and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.23248258]

>>23247984
My brothers fiancee is like this and so is my sister. I've contended myself to only talk about serious writing with other males as it would save me the grief.

[Anonymous No.23248401]

BILLIONS OF WOMEN MUST DIE

[Anonymous No.23248476]

Lego can provide some insight. They did a study where they had girls and boys play with toys, and the conclusion was that boys want to be who they’re playing as (e.g a boy with a Batman toy pretends to be Batman) whereas girls want the toy to be them (they have Batman go shopping and deal with girl problems). Same with romance, women read “Billionaire Rapist Vampire Romance” because they self insert with the plain Jane who is secretly perfect main character, whereas men aspire to something greater—we want to emulate Sharpe or James Bond or just want to insert ourselves into the scenario

[Anonymous No.23248563]

>>23248173
While I do concede that college educated women read leftist theory, they seem to read it out of a keeping-up-with-the-supposedly-smart-Joneses attitude, and if you ask them to explain the book they wont talk with clarity and at lenght as a man would, but will fumble along half a dozen sentences that mean nothing, which makes me suspect what happened is some kind of animus possession as Jung would say
>>23248189
Otoh, women, especially mothers and old school wives, are number one at self secrificing, so you are making an argument in favor of women here
>>23248228
Read the quotes of Florence Nightingale in this regard
>>23248476
While I believe that it is very possible this difference exists, I dont know how the study was conducted and your Batman example you made up isnt very good - Batman appeal to boys. Did boys also play doll with Barbie or did they have her punching criminals?

[Anonymous No.23248904]

>>23248228
Women have more affective empathy than men and less cognitive empathy. Cognitive empathy is effectively the ability to understand’s someone’s mental processes and affective empathy is just the “monkey see monkey do” empathy wherein you physically feel what another person has experienced, be it sadness or pain. One of these lends itself to genuine cooperation and the other lends itself to narcissistic self-involvement.

[Anonymous No.23248934]

>>23247984
Women in academia absolutely read canonical works. The male equivalent of women who only read romance and YA isn't men who read Hegel, it's men who don't read at all (i.e. the majority).

A lot of men waste their lives spending thousands of hours playing video games, and in that context women who read trash aren't any worse.

[Anonymous No.23248948]

>>23248934
Indeed, they are as gay and stupid though. Massively gay and stupid.

[Anonymous No.23248959]

>>23248934
This. The vast majority of men don't even read, let also good stuff.

[Anonymous No.23249133]

>>23248563
Barbie is for sex with Batman

[Anonymous No.23249145]

Most women read romance slop and most men read sci-fi/fantasy/self-help slop. Your point? This is such a low IQ thread.

[Anonymous No.23250166]

Women don’t care for inspection or exploration (of the physical world). They care about human relationships.

Plus men tend to be more logical, thus need their shows to make sense and be believable. That doesn’t matter as much for women thus the slop they can watch with terrible acting, directing, writing, matters little.

Just create a rich family involved in a drug/corrupt business, a pretty servant girl mistreated by the spiteful old matriach and the tall and ruggedly handsome son who falls for the servant girl and imagine the ineractions! Maybe put in a scenario where the old crone forces a miscarriage on the servant girls child, that’ll get the emotional juices flowing. Have her whisper “My son may not be able to see you for the whore you are, but I can” as she trips her ontop of some stairs, then cue the slow motion, 5-minute fall down the stairs with some eerily familiar music changed just slightly to avoid copyright. And ofcriuse, the son has to be at the bottom of those stairs running for those 5 minutes too, none the wiser to his mother’s underhanded tactics “i’m sure you tripping on her foot was an accident” he’ll say.

[Anonymous No.23250407]

>>23250166
Add some secret twins and fake deaths and this is any Mexican, Brazilian or Indian soap opera ever