High and low quality books

In my experience, there are more men than women who read high quality books and more women than men who read books which have really poor quality. I mean - it seems to me that the number of males who read books with high artistic or scientific value is higher than the number of females who do so. On the other hand, reading books which are total rubbish is more common for women than for men.
Do you agree with this?

yes, I agree with you (I'm male) 23
no, I don't think so (I'm male) 17
yes, I agree with you (I'm female) 13
no, I don't think so (I'm female) 11
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 21 )
  • prasatko

    I am inclined to agree with you because my own observations fully support your hypothesis. (It seems that the higher the quality of the book, the higher probability that there will be much larger percentage of males than females among its readers.) However, this hypothesis or opinion is not "politically correct", so I guess that even if people observed the same thing as you in their social circles, they would not admit it or they would try to find some counterexamples at any costs just in order to avoid sounding politically incorrect.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dappled

    Here is the way I see it. More women "read" than men. Either gender tends equally towards bad literature so more women read bad literature than men (because more read). The minority of people read good literature but - statistically - this also means more women in total read "bad" literature than men who read "good" literature.

    It may appear as if the majority of women are making bad reading choices when compared to the tiny majority of men who make good choices but the actuality is that they are a larger group and, as such, more women are reading "good" literature than men are. It's just skewed by being a bigger sample.

    I don't think there's a huge disparity and I think men and women are reasonably equal in this but I think the fact that men eschew reading makes it looks like men who read good books are some kind of minority and that this is a reason to assume the majority of women read books with no merit.

    Forget quantitation and look at ratios. I bet there isn't a lot of difference. If there is a difference, my feeling is that it doesn't come down on the side of men.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • This is correct.

      Tommy will put a smiley face on it after he grades the other papers.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dappled

        I'm holding you to that, Professor Tommykin.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Between you and me, I'm flunking half of these idiots.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
    • dude_Jones

      I see it this way ->

      high brow men -> read good literature.
      high brow women -> read good literature.
      low brow women -> read trashy romance novels.
      low brow men -> don't read. Look at porn, masturbate and drink beer.

      Be sure your sampling methods include all strata and intelligence levels.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dappled

        While I try to stay away from generalisations, I think you're right on this. Good thinking!

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I guess I should have been more specific in my original post. I have realized that it is not clear what I meant. By "more men" or "more women" I didn't mean absolute numbers but the proportion / percentage of men or women. My fault...

      What I meant was this:
      1. The percentage of males who read high quality books is higher than the percentage of women who do so.
      2. The percentage of females who read books with poor quality is higher than the percentage of men who do so.

      More specifically, I meant the prevalence of reading high quality books among male / female readers and the prevalence of reading low quality books among male / female readers.

      All in all, it seems that our observations are quite different...

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • As for absolute numbers, there is an interesting phenomenon I have noticed...
        If there is much more women who read books in general, one could expect that if they come to a bookshop, there will be more women than men who are interested in buying a book. I am not sure what the gender structure is in ordinary bookstores. However, there is a bookshop in my town in which almost exclusively high quality books are sold. Guess what? It is very likely that you would find more men (absolute number) than women who want to buy a book there or are looking for something. This is quite interesting provided that reading in general is more frequent among women than among men.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • dappled

          It's an interesting observation. In the cold light of day, I don't think either of our arguments could be proven. For instance, I was basing my observations just off talking to my friends. Perhaps my female friends are more likely to talk to me about literature than my male friends. Or perhaps I attract females who read and males who don't.

          Equally, we can't assume that men and women feel the same about bookshops. Where I live there's definitely a female bias to the crowd inhabiting bookshops and many bookshops now include a social element like a reading nook, soft furnishings, and a cafe. They're the equivalent of what a pub often used to be before the decline of the pub. I don't deny that bookshops are male-orientated where you live. It just seems different here. I'd even go so far as to say a bookshop is now probably the best place to meet a woman.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Bookshops are not male-oriented where I live. I suppose that there are much more books which are mainly for female readers than books that are mainly for male readers in ordinary bookshops in my town.

            What I wrote in my previous comment is not mutually exclusive with your observation. Note that I wrote: "I am not sure what the gender structure is in ordinary bookstores." What I was talking about are bookshops where pulp fiction or something like that cannot be found at all and a vast majority of books sold there have high artistic or scientific value - i.e. books that probably wouldn't be appreciated by the majority of population but are sought after by intellectuals or people with weird personalities that are reflected in their book preferences.

            However, as I wrote I don't have enough information about ordinary bookshops so you may be right that bookshops which "include a social element like a reading nook, soft furnishings, and a cafe" are overcrowded by females.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • dappled

              It's an interesting point. If women read more, I guess more books will be aimed at female readers. It's a business after all. I'd hate to see books for men disappear completely. I learnt everything I know from books. Although maybe that in itself is a good reason to ban books for men.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Fartyr

    Ugh yes. My fat, lazy, non-exercising housewife neighbor reads those god awful Harlequin romance things and eats all day while her husband works. So disgusting. Women like her make me embarrassed to be female.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dom180

    Well, the majority of shiterature (The Twilight Saga, The 50 Shades series etc.) is directly marketed at female people. There isn't really anything like that marketed at male people at the moment, from what I can see.

    That said, 50 Shades is more intellectually engaging than most porn out there, and that's what 50 Shades is: literally reading for pleasure. Saying more women read bad books because of examples like 50 Shades is the same as saying more men watch bad films because of the example of porn.

    But I take your point. Women are also probably more likely to read celebrity auto-biographies than men, because they've got a lot of human interest. That doesn't necessarily mean auto-biographies aren't intellectually engaging, but celebrity ones almost never are. And auto-biographies are just one example.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/22/women-reading-books-study This article is biased against men in it's language, but the stats are interesting and suggest that women do read a lot more generally. So, by way of echoing dappled's point (as I so often do; big welcome back, by the way) women do read more generally, so it's going to be expected that they'd read a higher concentration of crap.

    Interestingly, the stats in that article suggest that the percentage of men and women who are avid readers (as defined by those who read more than one book at a time; an imperfect definition but a reasonable enough one) is the same - 12% for each - which would make me think that the proportion of men and women who read "real literature" is probably about the same.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • "Saying more women read bad books because of examples like 50 Shades is the same as saying more men watch bad films because of the example of porn."
      I don't think that this is a good analogy and here is my explanation why I think so:
      Let's take an example:
      Person A read 50 Shades the day before and person B watched a porn video/clip the day before. Neither of them can remember the last time when they read or watched something else.

      Ask person A when was the last time they read a book and then ask person B when was the last time they watched a film.
      My guess is that it is very likely that their answeres would be:
      Person A: "Yesterday."
      Person B: "I can't remember."

      If this was the case, it would clearly show that you compare the uncomparable. Person A REALLY thinks that reading 50 Shades is reading a book while person B hardly thinks that watching a porn clip counts as watching a film and if they said so, they would not mean it seriously but as a joke.
      I don't want to start another topic here but I am sure it would be an interesting discussion to compare the quality of stuff that men and women watch. I guess soap operas mostly watched by women would be a good candidate to win, lol.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dom180

        I don't think it's comparing the un-comparable at all. People don't like to think those things are the comparable, but it's not up to people to decide what is similar and what is not; it doesn't stop them from being comparable. Maybe saying a "film" wasn't quite accurate of me, and I should have just said "watching" generally.

        I think the only thing that stops porn being to film as 50 Shades is to literature is the fact that most porn films aren't film-length (say, over 90 minutes long), otherwise the analogy really does stand up to logic even if it doesn't stand up to people.

        Well, I think talking more generally both sexes (stereotypically) watch stuff which the others think is crap. Men are more likely to watch sport, whereas women are more likely to watch reality TV and soaps (insert facts and lots of interesting stuff here despite it being very America-centric: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1998-04-24/lifestyle/9804230837_1_men-are-generally-men-and-women-men-and-women). Interestingly, women watch more TV but men watch more on the internet (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/american-video-habits-by-age-gender-and-ethnicity/).

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • You are right that saying a "film" wasn't quite accurate of you, and you should have just said "watching" generally. However, there is a great difference between "film" and "watching" generally. One can watch things that are far from being a film (e.g. weather forecast, music clips, porn clips, tv news, commercials,...) and therefore can't say anything about the person's taste in films. Similarly, one can read things that are far from being a book (e.g. newspapers, magazines, online blogs, advertisements, writings on the walls,...) and therefore can't say anything about the person's taste in books.
          A porn video /clip is not a film and therefore it can't say anything about the person's taste in films. However, 50 Shades IS a book and therefore it can say something about the person's taste in books.

          Let's say that if porn was film-lenght, it could be called a film. However, people who would watch it still wouldn't be as dumb as women who read 50 Shades because they generally don't think that they are watching a masterpiece of cinematography that could be awarded while many women who read 50 Shades or The Twilight Saga think that they are good books that could win an award.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
  • myownopinions

    First of all, there's no real basis to what constitutes as a "high quality book". Statistically, women read more than men, fictionional books are more geared towards women, males prefer books with war and/or adventure in them, and women prefer books that deal more with relationships and/or what characters are thinking.

    Also statistically, men have a better aptitude for math and science (which may or may not explain why they read books with "scientific value").

    In my experience, I have no idea what kind of books anybody (male or female) read.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • SangoNyappy

    Actually none of my male freiends (except one) read so I can't say anything because only me and my female friends read books while they think it's lame...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • bananaface

    Hmm, I'm not sure. I'm female and I've always thought that most of the books I read are really good, although perhaps not:P. I wonder whether you're right or not, I'd be interested in finding out, although I can't see that happening.

    Comment Hidden ( show )