Why do less boys and men read?

[Macha]

there exists a book, titled "101 ways to kill with a number two pencil".

Best book ever.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

yes. if you analyze where the brain rests in a human being.
you can use a sharpened *stick* on the eyes, nose, ears...
to easily pierce the brain and cause instantaneous death.
look at a skull. there are openings on that thick hard sphere of bone.
shooting or stabbing into the medulla oblongata, is light switch off.

stiff finger into an eye socket will kill, if you don't get squeamish and stop.
you just have to push hard enough.
there exists a book, titled "101 ways to kill with a number two pencil".
its an interesting read.

No pencil. I'm talking of butterfly knife. Wielded by an 18-year old Grade 1 student. He stabbed our 15-year old Grade 10 student.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Just saw this article(below) I don't think this is just in the UK and might be even worse in the united states. Why do so few men and boys read?

While women and girls are having a cultural Renaissance with whole new genres (Romantasy for example) and reading more than ever.

Why do you think this is? Is it just as simple as social media/games/videos is just so easy ans brainless and addictive?

Pleasure.

Yeah. Right.

 

[Conqueror_Quack]

Why do less boys and men read?

I read this as at first glance "why do lesbian men read?"

 

[JHarp]

because Men only read serious things, for men, like the war reports in the newspaper, auto repair manuals, and books on how to weld steel! Like manly manly men!

While many sources will point out that males prefer physical activities, I've always felt that school reading assignments often fail to engage dudes, often pushing themes dudes don't care about.

I'm gonna be honest, something a lot of people tend to ignore or forget, nostalgia, didn't care; etc is the fact that writing for the last few decades, if it wasn't 'relationships' for girls, it was 'boys adventure' that was functionally what a majority of kids books were, from extremely mainstream authors.
Boys go out treasure hunting, they end up with a whole Treasure Island in fact. Boys go out and survive in the wilderness in Lord of the Flies. Boys have their action competency confirmed and external agency actively narrated to them.

Boys were considered even back then as reluctant readers, and so almost all adventure books were designed as bait for them, that is how publishers actively aimed and marketed things, mobility, risk, challenges and daring attitudes were always things associated that way.

While publishing habits might not be well known by a lot of people now, there were entire book lists separating them for boys or for girls, they were intentionally written the way they were.

Girls got a market segmentation where they were 'assumed' to prefer relational and school narratives. Thats why you find a lot of solo female characters in school settings like Matilda.

All of this, was commercial practice, it was normal and people forget going into now-a-days how separated the systems were once children hit the age where they could read unassisted. Yet it shaped a massive chunk of culture especially in the western world.

but they'll look at it as a gender issue rather than "Oh shit, people growing up now don't enjoy reading.

As with most things, "it's complicated" because foundationally can be rooted to commercial biases and segmentation in marketing.
Where publishers actively marketed different types of stories to different groups of people.
Over time that tends to reinforce behavioural patterns, making it impossible to pull the salt out of seawater.
Things are difficult to seperate with the surrounding context they require for a full understanding.

Just saw this article(below)

I always hate news and stuff for that type of priming, because those are two completely different statements they 'claim'.
We want to talk issues, how about news places making specifically targeted headlines, the lowest most 'hype' values become the tagline to emphasise an issue that is only a fraction of the actual story, bonus points for foregrounding data that proves an existing public narrative.

I assure you if they had more precise data points like a specific school only having 1% reading rate in students age 6-8 or something they would be using that statistic instead.

Notice how the other half of the thing suddenly switches into 'all teenagers' having issues, it's almost like they just want people sharing and talking about their headline, which it seems you have managed to successfully been baited by their marketing tactics and taglines.

'18% overall' or 'varies by age and gender' are boring headers, they don't get people posting links to the sites on forums to start weak arguments that loop back on themselves. It's almost like media has over a hundred years practice.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

No pencil. I'm talking of butterfly knife. Wielded by an 18-year old Grade 1 student. He stabbed our 15-year old Grade 10 student.

I know, you said "knife fight". I'm just relating that a pencil can kill in the ear or the eye.

we are taught as children.
violence is wrong.
the problem is, though.
people that use force, get what they want.
boys start to look up to boys that use force to take what they want, and do what they want to do.
girls? smile at boys that do these things.
boys and girls, make fun of kids that follow the rules.

its all a lie.

until girls start to smile at boys that do the right thing?
you can't change a thing.
I don't like it, I think its wrong.
but it just is.

society used to put *pressure* on people, to do the right thing, that is against our animal instincts.
we called it "religion", but that was the function it served.
we no longer do.
once "proving" that religion or god was a lie?
you took the reins off of the horse.
we should have left the "lie" in place.
it served a useful function.

we instead *reward* the people that do the wrong things.
bullies? are socially successful.
a bully, is an *alpha* male! Woo hoo!
other boys? look up to them, as role models.
and girls? "tee hee. I like bad boys! tee hee!"

so called civilized society, is slowly breaking down.
we are deconstructing, back into our more primal instincts.
its evolution, in reverse.

we are de-evolving, devolving

welcome to hell.
the internet, will be your tour guide.
"you have no idea, how bad things really are"
but one day in the future, you will.

I'm having this argument right now on RR. The article is correct. Most men don't read.

Then again, most men who think they are reading, really aren't.

But the latter phenomenon isn't gender-specific. Most women who think they are reading aren't, either.

On the RR thread, people can't even agree on what reading is. We used to know. We know, no longer.

see, that's why you're around. to help me out.
when am i reading, think i'm reading, but I'm really not.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

I'm one of the rare people that know *excactly* what the market used to print. Because dad had every paperback he read in boxes and on shelves in the basement. Grandpa did, too. To grandpa, books were *expensive* things and they were hard to come by. You didn;t burn them or throw them away. the worst you did was sell them or even give them away. I grew up seing dad read, so next thing you know IU'm sitting there reading too. It was normal in my house. I didn't find out "reading was for losers" until I got older and outside the house. But by then it was too late, I was hooked on the scourge that was... reading.

Only the ruling class and the people that were elevated to serve them, were taught to read and write, historically.

For a long time, it was punishable by death to translate the BIBLE into the vulgate (vulgate=common tongue)
why? Easy.
the guy in the funny outfit, tells you a long story (sorry, sermon) and he will TELL YOU, what is in the book, and more importantly what it MEANS for YOU.
its essential that the vast hordes of poor people, not be able to read. or this doesn't work.

peasants once fought and died, just for the right to be allowed to read books for themselves.

today? you about need a *gun* to point at most people, to get them to finish a book.
you'd think you were asking them to pass their hands through fire.

the media pushes narr

ratives. Here they are:
1) women read. women should read more!
2) women are smarter than men. this is because they read more! (the latter may be stated, or just *implied*)
3) men read some, but less. men should read even less!
4) reading is feminine.

these things are circular. The *same* media outlet, will print an article. then later on, print another article:

"A study has shown that both men and women universally think men that read, are feminine"
3 months later, when they think no one will notice (most won't)
"Why are men reading less than women. Reading is statistically correlated with higher intelligence and better paying jobs"

let me see if I can find an example...

The point is this.
the ARTICLES everyone reads (and posts here to start conversations!)
they aren't "real".
orders come down from, what is being pushed AT THE MOMENT.
I don't *care* what the politicking of these three examples are, I don't care which side of any issue you're on.
Here? We're all just writers (and readers)
don't miss the important part.
The SAME WRITER, will make completely contradictory headline stories at different times.
they don't care, they don't believe in either story.
its just what they were told to write about. That DAY.

I couldn't find my favorite.
MARVEL came out with some movie.
there was some media blitz. All headlines were like "Men? Stay home! This movie, ain't for you!"
the article went on to brag how the movie was crafted form the ground up, to be for women to be enticed to see a movie, made for them.
the writers, the director, the producers, the actors.
everyone knew what the core concept of the movie, was.

I guess the idea was to fill movie theatres with women, cheering for some superheroine. Whatever.

months later, the movie was (apparentl;y) not "performing" at the box office. at all. New article!

"Why aren't men going to see this movie. Its a great movie. If a movie in a superhero franchise flops, it potentially pulls the plug on future superhero movies."

-----------------------------------

I kind of *yawn* when people toss up "articles".... on ANYthing.

it means about as much as "I overheard this at the truck stop"
the article says that, huh? Whoop de do. Wait three months, same writer, same media outlet.
they'll write the complete reverse article.

its all lies.
(most people) you are all a bunch of fish in an aquarium. trained to rush to where they drop flakes of fish food in the water.
and just *gobble* it up without sniffing it first.

 

[Woolen_Monkey]

That's pretty much any person, place, or thing that tells news at this point. They kinda just point at something then tell you why you should hate it. Then get mad at you for hating it. rinse and repeat. The sad thing is that it works.

-----

I read alot. Though it is true that most the people I know do not read that much. The person that got me into reading was a guy though.... He did turn out to be gay... I think I'm walking backwards with this... Welp not my problem. Bye

 

[Anonjohn20]

I'm gonna be honest, something a lot of people tend to ignore or forget, nostalgia, didn't care; etc is the fact that writing for the last few decades, if it wasn't 'relationships' for girls, it was 'boys adventure' that was functionally what a majority of kids books were, from extremely mainstream authors.
Boys go out treasure hunting, they end up with a whole Treasure Island in fact. Boys go out and survive in the wilderness in Lord of the Flies. Boys have their action competency confirmed and external agency actively narrated to them.

Boys were considered even back then as reluctant readers, and so almost all adventure books were designed as bait for them, that is how publishers actively aimed and marketed things, mobility, risk, challenges and daring attitudes were always things associated that way.

While publishing habits might not be well known by a lot of people now, there were entire book lists separating them for boys or for girls, they were intentionally written the way they were.

Girls got a market segmentation where they were 'assumed' to prefer relational and school narratives. Thats why you find a lot of solo female characters in school settings like Matilda.

All of this, was commercial practice, it was normal and people forget going into now-a-days how separated the systems were once children hit the age where they could read unassisted. Yet it shaped a massive chunk of culture especially in the western world.



As with most things, "it's complicated" because foundationally can be rooted to commercial biases and segmentation in marketing.
Where publishers actively marketed different types of stories to different groups of people.
Over time that tends to reinforce behavioural patterns, making it impossible to pull the salt out of seawater.
Things are difficult to seperate with the surrounding context they require for a full understanding.



I always hate news and stuff for that type of priming, because those are two completely different statements they 'claim'.
We want to talk issues, how about news places making specifically targeted headlines, the lowest most 'hype' values become the tagline to emphasise an issue that is only a fraction of the actual story, bonus points for foregrounding data that proves an existing public narrative.

I assure you if they had more precise data points like a specific school only having 1% reading rate in students age 6-8 or something they would be using that statistic instead.

Notice how the other half of the thing suddenly switches into 'all teenagers' having issues, it's almost like they just want people sharing and talking about their headline, which it seems you have managed to successfully been baited by their marketing tactics and taglines.

'18% overall' or 'varies by age and gender' are boring headers, they don't get people posting links to the sites on forums to start weak arguments that loop back on themselves. It's almost like media has over a hundred years practice.

That segmentation was very effective. What a coincidence that there are fewer boys reading now that they are trying to get boys to read girly stuff. True story, I know a guy who was forced to read Twilight and The Hunger Games as assigned reading when he was in high school. He had a feminist English teacher that only wanted female MCs in the curriculum that year. A guy that loves reading LotR, Dune, Treasure Island, and Moby Dick was forced to consume garbage (and pretend to like it; during reading comprehension and critical thinking assignments, she'd lower the score of anyone who thought negatively of love triangles, for example). Even right now in the smut genre, you'll see more males reading harems and more females reading polyamory.

 

[Envylope]

School is so overrated. If 10% of men are reading, it means school is shit. Let's fix this piece of trash.

 

[PurpleXanmal]

I mean for me, its the visual novels. Do you have any idea how many said. "Wow! This is a neat idea! Are you gonna make it a Visual Novel?" I'm like.. no. Then they just nod at me and never read it. I have tried saying yes, they instantly say. "Oh! Tell me when that's finished, I'll buy it then!"
I'm like.. the book is free though...