Sci-Fi & Fantasy Girlz discussion
Discussions & Debates
>
A tale of two genders
I posted this article because... I think it's crap.It looks like the "research" is shoddy at best, and the conclusions seem trite and stereotypical--not to mention snide. So, it pissed me off.
She describes the books that men listed as "on the whole, dead white men" but if you look at that list, several aren't dead, and some aren't white. She does note that Harper Lee appears on the list, but when describing the authors that female readers listed we are told that they are a "'much richer and more diverse' set of novels than men" but the list of women's favorite authors given is "Charlotte and Emily Brontë, Margaret Atwood, George Eliot and Jane Austen" a group that I'd feel comfortable describing as "dead, white women." (Atwood, of course, isn't any more dead than Nick Hornby, but that's part of the point....)
I checked out a few other articles by the same author and it seems she does an awful lot of that. Of course, it's The Guardian so we can expect a certain tone... but it seems like they could have put some sort of effort into this one at least by accident.
Shameful. Insulting...The men's list was all angst and Orwell. Sort of puberty reading," she said.
The researchers also found that women preferred old, well-thumbed paperbacks, whereas men had a slight fixation with the stiff covers of hardback books.
"We were completely taken aback by the results," said Prof Jardine, who admitted that they revealed a pattern verging on a gender cliche...
Gosh, they should come to my house. Fourteen floor-to-ceiling steel bookcases. HBs and PBs galore. And then there are the ten long boxes full of comic books.
The researchers also found that women preferred old, well-thumbed paperbacks, whereas men had a slight fixation with the stiff covers of hardback books.Wow. No. I might not be buying hardcover books (because I'm cheap) but I dislike used books. Among other things, I'm sensitive to smell so used books are always a gamble. I do own some, but touching them makes me wash my hands afterwards.
Even the thought of this makes me shudder, ugh.
I suspect that their sample wasn't properly representative of 'all men' - 'Professor Lisa Jardine and Annie Watkins of Queen Mary College interviewed 500 men, many of whom had some professional connection with literature, about the novels that had changed their lives.'You'd really expect the results to be skewed with that kind of sample.
Oh btw, someone please help me out with this part:On the whole, men between the ages of 20 and 50 do not read fiction. This should have some impact on the book trade. There was a moment when car manufacturers realised that it was women who bought the family car, and the whole industry changed. We need fiction publishers - many of whom are women - to go through the same kind of recognition," Prof Jardine said.
I have trouble understanding this: Does she mean there should be more non-fiction books written for these readers?
From personal experience I can only say that I came across 'non fiction only' readers twice. One of them a man, one of them a woman. Can't say how this works for statistics.
Also, like Leonie pointed out: not very representative - given that people who work with literature very often have a different view on it than readers. (Anyone remember the topic about the teacher who only tought books by white male (presumedly straight) authors?)
"On the whole", except for my busily-reading friends on this site who happen to be men within this large age category. "On the whole"...??? !!! Article gets worse more you look at it.
Yep, for decent generalisations to be made you actually need a large sample of the whole population - not men who have a 'professional' connection with literature. All I can say is that it appears fairly obvious that (without looking at the raw data) that you can say that 'men who have a professional connection with literature' might tend to like these books. More research required to discover whether the general population is the same.
I could make a rude comment here about those with science degrees vs those with arts degrees...or just leave it at this :)
Sparrowlicious wrote: "I have trouble understanding this: Does she mean there should be more non-fiction books written for these readers?"I think she was implying that publishers shouldn't bother with male readers. Rather, in her view, fiction is made up of books published by women that should be for women, and the publishing industry just hasn't caught up to that dynamic yet.
There was a study by Pew Research a while back that said that the average (median) American man reads four books per year and the average American woman reads six. While that sounds bad (particularly here on Goodreads) some folks find it optimistic:
http://theidiosyncratist.blogspot.com...
I have to say, I've run into an awful lot of people who will say, outright and even with pride, "I don't read books." At a guess, I'd say I've heard that from over a dozen people in the last couple of years.
But I think that has more to do with fashion and a sense of hipster chic. Reading is, in this view, a time consuming activity that could be better spent drinking, playing video games, other otherwise being "cool" in comparison. In general, I think it boils down to reading "books" (as opposed to web sites, magazines, comics, etc.) being a hobby for some folks, and not for others. So, it's a matter of aficionados versus drones, if you will.
That said, finding some elaborate gender divide amongst the aficionados seems arbitrary and inaccurate.
The "non-fiction" comment also strikes me as odd, particularly given the example used to support that contention (the leader of the British Conservative party.)
In any case, I've been trying to find the actual data that the article references. From what I can tell it's not really based on anything like "research" but on the interviews conducted in this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006...
That one is, arguably, more complete, but no less vapid in its conclusions.
Gary, obviously those of us on Goodreads.com AREN'T average Americans (my apologies, in advance, to members who AREN'T Americans)!There is no such thing as AVERAGE any more.
Look at MY reading challenge...lol. I challenged myself to read 400 books for the year and I am 79% through...2 books ahead of where I SHOULD be, according to the algorithm (hope I spelled that right)! Looks at these pages! Can you see a single book in here that is "chick lit."?https://www.goodreads.com/user_challe...
And btw, I prefer hardbacks...sturdier than paperbacks.
Leonie wrote: "You'd really expect the results to be skewed with that kind of sample. "Exactly.
I think maybe they missed a few classes of Statistics 101. This "study" doesn't make any sense.
Amber wrote: "There is no such thing as AVERAGE any more."Of course there is. You're just an outlier like many people here on Goodreads.
You don't read six romance novels a year like the average american female reader does, you're very, very far from the median.
We're part of the long tail of readers. While there's millions of people who read 4 books a year at the most, there's also a very large number of people who read more than 30, more than a 100 or even 400 books a year, each one being a smaller group than the previous, but that's still a lot of people.
Yoly wrote: "Leonie wrote: "You'd really expect the results to be skewed with that kind of sample. "Exactly.
I think maybe the missed a few classes of Statistics 101. This "study" doesn't make any sense."
Exactly! Grab an already biased sample, discover 'surprising' results, extrapolate them to the general population without proper analysis or controlling for said biases and then add a headline! And one of them has a professor title...
Yoly wrote: "Amber wrote: "There is no such thing as AVERAGE any more."Of course there is. You're just an outlier like many people here on Goodreads.
You don't read six romance novels a year like the average..."
I never said I didn't read romance novels. LOL. I do, but so far, there aren't any in my self imposed reader's challenge. :) And I have no way of entertaining myself at home, other than reading and listening to NPR since I can't afford cable/satellite or to go to movies on a regular basis.
Leonie wrote: "Yoly wrote: "Leonie wrote: "You'd really expect the results to be skewed with that kind of sample. "Exactly.
I think maybe the missed a few classes of Statistics 101. This "study" doesn't make an..."
Good one!
Amber wrote: ""I never said I didn't read romance novels. LOL. I do, but so far, there aren't any in my self imposed reader's challenge. :)"So at least not this year, right? :)
"...And I have no way of entertaining myself at home, other than reading and listening to NPR since I can't afford cable/satellite or to go to movies on a regular basis. "
Your challenge is impressive, don't downplay it. I don't have cable or satellite either and there is no way I could finish 400 books in a year.
Not that I can remember, Yoly, no. :)I wasn't attempting to downplay my accomplishment...just explain it. :)
Thanks for clearing that up, Gary!I think she was implying that publishers shouldn't bother with male readers. Rather, in her view, fiction is made up of books published by women that should be for women, and the publishing industry just hasn't caught up to that dynamic yet.
Well, that would explain why we're getting flooded by YA romance books that support abusive behaviour as an idea of being 'romantic'.
Btw, when it comes to reading lots of books:
The average person I meet in real life doesn't even read at all because they 'can't find the time' for it. Someone even told me they couldn't concentrate on reading. Hm.
Sparrowlicious wrote: "Thanks for clearing that up, Gary!I think she was implying that publishers shouldn't bother with male readers. Rather, in her view, fiction is made up of books published by women that should be f..."
You mean like the Twatlight Saga, Sparrowlicious? LOL. "Well, that would explain why we're getting flooded by YA romance books that support abusive behaviour as an idea of being 'romantic'."
Anyone who says they "can't find time" for reading is lying, IMO. They want you to think they're too busy to make time for reading when they are probably just intellectually lazy or functionally illiterate.
"Functionally illiterate" means they're CAPABLE of reading but DON'T because they're either lazy or think it's boring to read.
Yes, unfortunately that's what I mean. It's not solely a problem in literature, it's also something that tv shows do, it's something that our society does. Of course we get this crap in books as well.
I admit, it does get better. Just look at the younger readers who saw that the ideas in Fifty Shades of Gray are problematic. Still, it's a long way.
So we get swamped with books that support abusive ideas and that's terrible. True, SMeyer and James are both adult women of a different generation. Unfortunately since their books are popular their ideas get microwaved over and over again.
Over in F&SF we call the endless quest fantasies Extruded Fantasy Product. You know: they have to find The Whateveritis of Doom! And do something with it!
In Miami, where I live, there is a generation of people who do not read because when they were in public school their teachers resented having to abide by the new laws designed to improve teaching. The bad teachers (not the good ones, obviously) in their resentment at being forced to show results of their teaching through student testing, taught the kids to hate reading. The people I know of this age group tell me they hate to read. However, the bad teachers seem to have been weeded out and each year I see more kids in the bookstores and more books in the bookstores aimed at young readers.
Cynthia wrote: "In Miami, where I live, there is a generation of people who do not read because when they were in public school their teachers resented having to abide by the new laws designed to improve teaching...."But how many of them are buying REAL books and not the cop out format known as the electronic reader? Best thing about a REAL paper book is that it's much easier to recycle than the electronic reader is AND YOU DON'T NEED BATTERIES!
I am an UNASHAMED Nazi about this (and grammar as well) as well as a LUDDITE.
Amber wrote: "I am an UNASHAMED Nazi about this (and grammar as well) as well as a LUDDITE."Unfortunately I'm really bad at explaining this but:
Please don't ever call yourself a nazi. Even if it's only about grammar. Grammar police is fine. But nazi? No. No. No.
Since I suck at explaining: I'm from Austria. We're sensible about this. At least people who got at least one sensible bone in their body are. Because nazis were freaking awful and we should all be glad that the original ones are gone. Unfortunately society makes new ones. It's freaking horrible.
Amber wrote: "Best thing about a REAL paper book is that it's much easier to recycle than the electronic reader is AND YOU DON'T NEED BATTERIES!..."And the best thing about e-books is that they don't need to be recycled ;)
Sparrowlicious wrote: "Please don't ever call yourself a nazi. Even if it's only about grammar. Grammar police is fine. But nazi? No. No. No."I have something of a screed on this kind of thing, so please pardon me for the length of this one.
This is one of those things we do all have to be careful about. The folks in Ferguson, Missouri might have a different POV on whether "grammar police" is any better than "grammar nazi" in recent years. Cross-culturalism and the transfer of history is a complex problem.
I'm of two minds on this kind of thing. First, I think it's perfectly sensible to be aware of the history involved in such matters, and sensibility involves sensitivity to those self-same ideas.
On the other hand, we have to be careful not to give those issues (and the vocabulary that goes with them) power by imbuing them with special status. If one "can't" use trigger words, then those words wind up being all the more influential and devastating when used by those who would do harm. It behooves all of use to reject that process. An actual skinhead who calls himself a nazi is scary if nazi is a bad word. If he calls himself a nazi and I think of Weird Al Yankovic then he's emasculated. What's more, the Weird Al version is probably closer to the truth....
So, when using a term like "grammar nazi" I think it makes sense to have some sort of ludic, satirical voice that is obvious. With that in mind: as we all know, the grammar nazis gathered up millions of verbs and conjugated them without a sentence. Action verbs were ruthlessly separated from their transitives and made past tense regardless of their irregularity.
Never deny The Holloclause.
I think the most sensible way of going about any sort of issue that involves trigger words, politics and identity issues is to first assume the sanctity of the safety, integrity and freedom of all people, then move on from a position of respect... but never let go of the recognition that there's an inherent ridiculousness to the whole process. It's sometimes a warped and black humor that is associated with it, but to deny that humor is to empower those terms with authority that they don't have otherwise.
But that has to come from a place of comprehension and understanding. Otherwise, it has no real value.
Yoly wrote: "Amber wrote: "Best thing about a REAL paper book is that it's much easier to recycle than the electronic reader is AND YOU DON'T NEED BATTERIES!..."And the best thing about e-books is that they d..."
WRONG! They DO need to be recycled when you upgrade because there are too damned many toxic materials in one to allow them to be simply thrown into the regular trash... .
Gary wrote: "Sparrowlicious wrote: "Please don't ever call yourself a nazi. Even if it's only about grammar. Grammar police is fine. But nazi? No. No. No."I have something of a screed on this kind of thing, s..."
OW. Some of that made me laugh so hard my back was spasming into knots... .
Amber wrote: "WRONG! They DO need to be recycled when you upgrade because there are too damned many toxic materials in one to allow them to be simply thrown into the regular trash... ."That's true for the e-readers, I meant the e-books ;)
But I know what you mean... :)
Each format has its advantages and disadvantages and we all have our preferences but I think digital books are better for school. With one device a student could carry all their books, make notes without making any permanent damage to it, it's easier to use as a reference tool because you can do searches on it, a student can pick a larger font if they have a problem reading with a smaller one, etc.
I think the digital format could be used differently for teaching. For example, I could be reading a book that was assigned for class, and I would find some highlights and extra notes from my teacher maybe recommending an additional text to read or giving context to a particular paragraph. Or I could see highlights and notes my peers have done and want to share with the class, and also see their progress in the book and have a mini leader board depending on progress. I think this could help a lot with getting students engaged. What do you guys think?
Yoly wrote: "Amber wrote: "WRONG! They DO need to be recycled when you upgrade because there are too damned many toxic materials in one to allow them to be simply thrown into the regular trash... ."That's tru..."
Notes taken in longhand have been shown to stick better in memory and thefore improve grades more than computer notes.
Amber wrote: "Notes taken in longhand have been shown to stick better in memory and thefore improve grades more than computer notes."I've read that kind of thing too. From what I can tell, the learning/retention/comprehension chain goes:
Hardcopy in hardcover (harder to read in bed, seems to require more attentive, sitting up position)
Hardcopy in softcover
ecopy on a dedicated ereader
ecopy on a phone (for some reason not taken as seriously.)
Unabridged audio recording
film adaptation
TV/video adaptation
I don't in particular shun one or another format myself, but I do bear the hierarchy in mind when looking for my own reading/entertainment.
Amber wrote: " REAL BOOKS.."A book is what is written. Paper and electronic devices are methods of conveying the writing. The first book, Etruscan, was written on gold. Books were also written on papyrus and palm leaves. They were all "REAL BOOKS."
I agree with the person from Austria about making light of the word Nazi. I have known three people who freed from Nazi concentration camps and had the numbers tattooed on their arms. I know of a family who only exists because a heroic Portuguese bureaucrat defied orders and gave more than a thousand people in one week visas to enter Portugal. A couple and their child, the grandparents and father of my friends were that couple and child. The suffering extends down the generations. If a skinhead wants to call himself a Nazi that is to be taken seriously. When someone tells me something bad about themselves I believe them. Calling yourself a grammar Nazi is as funny as telling a rape victim you are a grammar rapist.
Gary wrote: "Amber wrote: "Notes taken in longhand have been shown to stick better in memory and thefore improve grades more than computer notes."I've read that kind of thing too. From what I can tell, the l..."
Should add "abridged audio book" at the very bottom... .
Cynthia wrote: "Amber wrote: " REAL BOOKS.."A book is what is written. Paper and electronic devices are methods of conveying the writing. The first book, Etruscan, was written on gold. Books were also written on..."
Ebooks are NOT real books...ever. They don't feel like real books, they don't look like 'em, the bindings or lack thereof don't feel like 'em and they sure as hell DON'T SMELL Like 'em!
Etruscan gold brick books don't count for this discussion but papyrus scrolls and vellum (formal name for parchment) scrolls as well sure do. Only paper and the immediate predecessors of paper (including parchment which was made from animal skin) do. The so-called "successors" (e readers) do NOT.
Amber wrote: "Should add "abridged audio book" at the very bottom..."They must make those, but I've never actually "heard" one before. I'm sure you're right, though.
Gary wrote: "Amber wrote: "Should add "abridged audio book" at the very bottom..."They must make those, but I've never actually "heard" one before. I'm sure you're right, though."
9 times out of every 10 that I try to do audio books, I get the abridged... .
The one great thing about ebooks is if you travel. No more do you have to carry a suitcase full of mass market paperbacks! I can carry a thousand books on my Ipad, and use it for other stuff as well. I don't use it so much at home, but on the road it is a lifeline.
I'll read in any format. Paper, electronic, skywriting.... There is, however, a hierarchy of the reading experience with, say, a 15th century illuminated manuscript at one side and Twitter on the other.I don't consider audio books "reading" per se, but I'm not opposed to them as a thing. I'm listening to this right now:
Our Oriental Heritage, Part 1 of 2
...and it's a perfectly good methodology for something as broad and generalized as that. I like audio/video for lectures or speeches, so TED talks, the CBC program Big Ideas or various on-line classes are good for that sort of thing.
I don't think I'd want to "hear" a book about the Potsdam conference, for example, or something that I was actually trying to absorb in a scholarly way, because I don't think the comprehension/retention rate for such a thing is great, and I generally avoid a recording of a novel because I don't want the reader's interpretation interfering with my own experience of the prose, dialogue and narrative structure. However, I wouldn't mind listening to someone read a novel if I'd already read it and wanted to hear how it might be interpreted by another reader. Though authors aren't always great readers, I have listened to Roger Zelazny's readings of his own work, and hearing a recording of "Roar" from Ginsberg's mouth is a very valuable literary experience.
However, I'm always reminded of that bit in Spinal Tap when I think of books on tape in which St. Hubbins is talking about loving "the classics" and listening to them being read by their namesakes.
- It's called The Namesake Series of cassettes. They send you works of famous authors done by actors with the same last name. So I've got Denholm Elliott reading TS Eliot on this one.
- Interesting.
- Yes.
- I've got Danny Thomas doing A Child's Christmas In Wales by Dylan Thomas.
- Next month it's McLean Stevenson reads Robert Louis Stevenson. Treasure Island, I believe.
- Interesting. Fascinating.
- There's also the shorter works of Washington Irving read by someone called Dr J.
- That's Julius Irving.
- There you go, in keeping with the series.
Amber wrote: "Cynthia wrote: "Amber wrote: " REAL BOOKS.."A book is what is written. Paper and electronic devices are methods of conveying the writing. The first book, Etruscan, was written on gold. Books were..."
The first book was an Etruscan book worked in gold. It was not a brick. It is thin sheets of gold joined together with gold rings like a spiral notebook. The Etruscans were masters at gold working and gold and could work with gold that was only one molecule thick when they made gold sandals which every Athenian lady bought to be in fashion. Today we don't know how they managed that. We can't.
You are confusing the medium on which the words are written with the writing.
Gary said, " There is, however, a hierarchy of the reading experience with, say, a 15th century illuminated manuscript at one side and Twitter on the other."Love that, but of course what is being said and how it is said is the most important hierarchy. When I went to the post office the other day to send of a manuscript and asked for Media Mail, I got an argument from the postal worker who did not know what a manuscript was. Isn't it amazing an adult would not know what a manuscript is?
Amber wrote: "Ebooks are NOT real books...ever."And also you could argue that MP3 songs are not real music since they're not vinyl or tape or CDs.
And Vinyl and tape and CDs are not real music because they're not the live performance.
And the music I stream on Spotify also isn't real music.
And the movies I watch on Netflix aren't real movies.
And the money in your bank account is not real money until you go to an ATM and withdraw some bills.
And paperbacks are not real books because they're not hardcover.
And getting an education online is not real because you're not walking into a classroom.
And we're not real people since we're not face-to-face.
Etc...
If you think about it almost everything today is delivered in a different format than it was 20 years ago and it's still the same thing, it's just the delivery mechanism that's changed.
Who knows what is going to be the preferred format for books in 25 years!
Brenda wrote: "The one great thing about ebooks is if you travel. No more do you have to carry a suitcase full of mass market paperbacks! I can carry a thousand books on my Ipad, and use it for other stuff as wel..."I remember the days where we had to make a decision "which book(s) should I take?" These days you pick your tablet or e-reader and you're good to go and take your whole library with you. And if you have an internet connection you could buy a new book wherever you are and get it in under 10 seconds.
Yoly wrote: "And the money in your bank account is not real money until you go to an ATM and withdraw some bills..."When I was in high school I wrote a story for an English assignment that some thieves broke into Fort Knox and were amazed to find there was no gold in there. My teacher was so mad my mother was afraid she was going to flunk me. My mother did some fancy talking and the teacher didn't flunk me.
And since we are not real people we must be butterflies dreaming and flapping their wings in China to change the weather in a non-existent place where everybody reads e-books.
Yoly wrote: "Who knows what is going to be the preferred format for books in 25 years!"I'm guessing neural implantation or RNA injections.
Brenda wrote: "The one great thing about ebooks is if you travel. No more do you have to carry a suitcase full of mass market paperbacks! I can carry a thousand books on my Ipad, and use it for other stuff as wel..."I still say real books are superior. With a real book, you don't have to worry that your screen is glary or bright enough to keep your fellow flight mates awake when they want to sleep on an overnight overseas flight. Not to mention the fact that a real paper books IS NOT made of "Conflict minerals" like e-readers are...
Gary: Interesting point... .
Cynthia: In the modern sense of the word the Etruscan thing on gold leaves is closer to what I had in mind when I speak of "real books," meaning books on paper with ink...not pixels on an illuminated screen.
1st Yoly: In 25 years? I predict no one's gonna CARE because we as a species will be kaput.
2nd Yoly: "Anything worth doing is best done slowly so you don't make a horrible mistake."
2nd Gary: See my reply to 1st Yoly (i.e. the reply to Yoly's 1st remark).
Amber wrote: "1st Yoly: In 25 years? I predict no one's gonna CARE because we as a species will be kaput."I like the way you think, haha.
Gary wrote: "I'm guessing neural implantation or RNA injections."I'm hoping for the pill version of books, maybe those will come out sooner.
"The novel that means most to men is about indifference, alienation and lack of emotional responses. That which means most to women is about deeply held feelings, a struggle to overcome circumstances and passion, research by the University of London has found."
Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/ap...