# Men's books, women's books.



## Olly Buckle (Sep 16, 2020)

I recently finished "The keeper of lost things" by Ruth Hogan and was discussing it with the missus who works at the library when she said it was a 'women's book' and I was  unusual in that I read a number of books by women, 'But you are quite 'Womanly' in some ways'. It surprised me, but she assures me that most men mostly read books by men, and quite a few exclusively so. TBH it had never occurred to me to look at the sex of an author, and when I think back to my early reading I worked my way through Dorothy Sayers, Margery Allingham, Ngaio Marsh et al avidly age about eleven or twelve when I finished with 'Children's' books. How about you? Do you differentiate between men's and women's books?


----------



## Bayview (Sep 16, 2020)

I don't consciously select female authors, but most of my favorite authors are female, so...?


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 16, 2020)

I think I read more books by (and often, featuring as MCs) women now than I did as a young'un. Back then it was all Stephen King and Dean Koontz and HG Wells and Tolkien and Poe. I think I've just expanded my reading repertoire, particularly as I dig into the fantasy canon, where there are loads of female writers/characters, so it sort of goes with the territory. I read some Robert Ludlum and Andy McNab and - they were okay, not mega-memorable, but they passed the time. It's never really bothered me what gender the author is. I think, for the longest time, when I was really young, I thought possibly all authors were female. Male authors seemed quite a new thing. 

One of the things I like about a lot of female authors is the unflinching attention to detail on character. You get the sense that every little internal personal oddity, no matter how cringey and uncomfortable, has been factored in. I like it; those pariahdom-inducing properties that I might have assumed only I possessed (I'd certainly never heard anyone else talk about them) suddenly found a soulmate on the page. That for me is a great hook. Ah!, I'd say. Here's someone that feels as I do. By contrast, I read Kane and Abel by disgraced Tory peer Jeffrey Archer a few weeks ago, and while I enjoyed it, I kid you not, the _entire _thing is tell, and it's all rather cliche-ridden as regards the elements of the story. I mean I know it was in the 80's or whenever, but for fuck's sake, Jane Eyre was 100+ years before that and the personalities are far more relatable, far less cardboard cut out. But these are of course just two examples in many. In fairness, one of the things I always enjoyed about King is his similar approach to character.


----------



## Joker (Sep 16, 2020)

_Checks Kindle.

Every single book I've read in the last year was written by a man._

Huh.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 16, 2020)

Joker said:


> _Checks Kindle.
> 
> Every single book I've read in the last year was written by a man._
> 
> Huh.



Try "The Keeper of Lost Things". I thoroughly enjoyed it, and it is a fairly quick and easy read.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 16, 2020)

I am a (straight) man and read probably more books by women. It's not a conscious thing and I do read both fairly evenly, but it's probably 60% female to 40% male, something like that. 

I think genre has a lot to do with it. I read all kinds of things but given a free choice would tend to gravitate toward psychological thrillers and crime/mystery stuff and, within that, have a particular interest in domestic fiction that deals with shitty relationships and family secrets (think Gillian Flynn, Claire McGowan, Paula Hawkins) more than more procedural stuff. Obviously these are written by both men and women but, judging by a brief Amazon scan, do seem quite female dominated these days...so maybe that's why. No doubt if I read mainly science fiction or fantasy it would be mostly men as those are (still) male dominated.

To answer the question, I don't differentiate much between women and mens books but 'womens fiction' exists and there are most definitely certain books on the extremes that are targeted towards gender and it's probably reasonable for people to refer to those as [gender] books. 

Let's be real, a book like the below is definitely written for women. There are quite a lot of books in this 'genre' -- entire racks at the bookstore, in fact. So, if we're talking this kind of stuff I think it's a legitimate observation. I still would read this stuff, because it's good to expose oneself to different high quality genres (it says USA TODAY BESTSELLING AUTHOR so I assume its not trash) but I wouldn't be offended if I got a sideways glance or two.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 16, 2020)

I tend to like writers with an introspective style. So I probably read more female authors than male.

But, honestly, author gender doesn't really concern me. As long as I dig the writing, I'll read it. :encouragement:


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 16, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Let's be real, a book like the below is definitely written for women.



Or gay men.

Literature used to exceedingly male-dominated, so more of what I read or used to read was written by men (Poe, Lovecraft, Stoker, etc.). After that I found authors like Mary Freeman, Charlotte Gilman, Kate Chopin (who I'm not a huge fan of).

It seems female authors tend to cast a more critical eye on society on average. (I'm a biased woman, but whatever.)

One thing female writers have going for them is that women can write men and women at least decently, while men sometimes fail at writing women. The barrier to understanding is much more one-sided than men realize.

Nowadays I don't know if it makes as much of a difference. I still tend to vibe with women authors a little bit more than with male authors, as a whole.

Sometimes I work on stuff that's _​aggressively female_ (that doesn't mean "thirsting over men in heterosexual fashion" btw) and sometimes I don't.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 16, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> Or gay men.



Well sure, but there are a lot fewer gay men around than women!



> It seems female authors tend to cast a more critical eye on society on average. (I'm a biased woman, but whatever.)



I think this is where we get into problems of generalizations.

I don't know what 'female authors tend to cast a more critical eye on society on average' means because...what does it mean? Society how? If we're talking books of social commentary, I would say those are very much of interest to male authors. Of course, it depends a lot of what is being criticized. Would something like "The Handmaid's Tale" have come from a male author? I doubt it, because it is very much concerned with female-centered issues. Would something like "Lord Of The Flies" have come from a female author? Possibly, but since it's about a group of boys it certainly feels more likely to have been written by a male and it certainly concerns male issues prevalently. 



> One thing female writers have going for them is that women can write men and women at least decently, while men sometimes fail at writing women. The barrier to understanding is much more one-sided than men realize.



I disagree that women are consistently able to write men decently. I think men and women tend to fail at writing the opposite sex at broadly similar rates, it just happens that men writing women can often seem more glaringly ridiculous or obnoxious because men tend to be more audacious in their sexism. Bad female depictions of men exist, they are just less 'meme-able'.

I'm not sure what you mean by the barrier to understanding being one-sided. Are you saying you think women are better equipped to understand men than vice-versa?


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 16, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by the barrier to understanding being one-sided. Are you saying you think women are better equipped to understand men than vice-versa?



Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. At least as long as society stays the way it is.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 16, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. At least as long as society stays the way it is.



What does women understanding men have to do with society, though? Like, how does that work? Can you give an example of something about men that women have a unique insight into because of 'society'?

I don't dismiss the existence of gender differences at all, I'm just not sure how they provide the insight. I can see that social inequality allows women a special insight into the way other _women_ might think...but not men.


----------



## indianroads (Sep 16, 2020)

I don't pay much attention to the gender of the author - the story line attracts me initially, after that, I'll read a bit to check the writing quality and see how the characters are handled - if it's good, I'll read on. I've enjoyed books by both sexes. Pretty much, my favored authors are split evenly between male and female.

Occasionally though, a female author will write a male MC completely, horribly, terribly wrong. When that happens, I'm done with that author for good. I'm sure there are women that have encountered the same issue with male authors writing a female MC. That's a whole other thread though.

Male & female readers are probably drawn to different genre's. I have no statistics to back it up, but from what I've seen, more females are drawn to romance novels, while males read more military history books. How many women have read Pressfield's Gates of Fire, Tides of War, or The Virtues of War?


----------



## Joker (Sep 16, 2020)

indianroads said:


> I don't pay much attention to the gender of the author - the story line attracts me initially, after that, I'll read a bit to check the writing quality and see how the characters are handled - if it's good, I'll read on. I've enjoyed books by both sexes. Pretty much, my favored authors are split evenly between male and female.
> 
> Occasionally though, a female author will write a male MC completely, horribly, terribly wrong. When that happens, I'm done with that author for good. I'm sure there are women that have encountered the same issue with male authors writing a female MC. That's a whole other thread though.
> 
> Male & female readers are probably drawn to different genre's. I have no statistics to back it up, but from what I've seen, more females are drawn to romance novels, while males read more military history books. How many women have read Pressfield's Gates of Fire, Tides of War, or The Virtues of War?



I don't think it's so much the violence - most of the women I know aren't any more squeamish than the men - so much as military and historical works are more about concepts rather than people. Women are more people and relationship focused while men care about abstract things.


----------



## Deleted member 64995 (Sep 17, 2020)

Usually, I read the plot, if I like it, I buy the book and read it.
I have always chosen books like this.


The problem is another, in my opinion.
There is a strong prejudice, unfortunately towards both.
If a woman writes a war book, she will be criticized.
If the same book is sold under the author's name " Man"  the book is a masterpiece.


I don't make any difference, I read the plot, if I like it I read it, regardless of the genre.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 17, 2020)

I think a lot of the time the stereotypical "male" books have, you guessed it, male main characters, while the stereotypical "female" books have female main characters. I think I'd quite like to read a war book or a spy thriller or whatever with a female MC, but I'm not sure I've ever encountered one.

So we may be working harder than we need to in order to match up literary characteristics with gender stereotypes. Maybe a lot of people just like reading books about people of the same gender as themselves.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 17, 2020)

Some of my favorite authors -- E. Annie Proulx, Flannery O'Connor, Carson McCullers, Alice Munro, Amy Hempel, Jennifer Egan, Dorothy Allison, Eudora Welty -- and I assure, you -- since we're clarifying -- I am a very manly man, with a beard and a tool room and everything.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 17, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> What does women understanding men have to do with society, though? Like, how does that work? Can you give an example of something about men that women have a unique insight into because of 'society'?
> 
> I don't dismiss the existence of gender differences at all, I'm just not sure how they provide the insight. I can see that social inequality allows women a special insight into the way other _women_ might think...but not men.



In an unequal relationship there will be those who do not need to understand the others, they simply require them to do their duties, and those who need to understand because you don't want to piss off a superior. Male female relationships have moved away from this quite a bit, with two buts. We haven't moved as far as some think, things are just a bit more covert in many cases, and there is an inherited hangover of attitude. If your dad provided your mum with leadership right through your childhood you may be an adult now, but ...  If your mum almost never took things head on but tried to manipulate your dad outside his awareness it don't mean you were unaware of it  ...


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> I think I'd quite like to read a war book or a spy thriller or whatever with a female MC, but I'm not sure I've ever encountered one.



Not sure what we're classifying as 'war books' but I've come across quite a lot of books recently set during wars with female protagonists and not necessarily in traditional female roles. It seems like something of a trend.

As far as what I have read: The Abolitionist's Daughter by Diane McPhail is a good book about the American Civil War from a female perspective. The Orphan's Tale is a recent-ish bestseller set during world war two with a female MC, though obviously neither of these is 'from the battlefield' so to speak. Orphan's Tale I found to be especially memorable. 

I don't really read spy thrillers at all, but a google search reveals they do exist. https://www.toledolibrary.org/blog/15-intriguing-spy-novels-written-by-women-featuring-female-spies



Olly Buckle said:


> In an unequal relationship there will be those who do not need to understand the others, they simply require them to do their duties, and those who need to understand because you don't want to piss off a superior. Male female relationships have moved away from this quite a bit, with two buts. We haven't moved as far as some think, things are just a bit more covert in many cases, and there is an inherited hangover of attitude. If your dad provided your mum with leadership right through your childhood you may be an adult now, but ...  If your mum almost never took things head on but tried to manipulate your dad outside his awareness it don't mean you were unaware of it  ...



I don't disagree with the premise, but just because one person is ignorant of the other doesn't mean that the other is any more insightful of them. 

I don't understand Henry Kissinger, but my lack of understanding of Henry Kissinger doesn't make Henry Kissinger any more understanding of me -- or anyone else? 

I think a lot of the time we get into this trap of ascribing excessive expertise or virtue or both to the oppressed party. I see this kind of thing a lot these days and as sympathetic as I am to the emotional aspects, it seems like overcompensation. The fact (most) men are extremely ignorant of women doesn't mean that women understand men. I'm sure there are women who have had to evolve a certain degree of reading men to get by in a 'man's world' (especially in the context of domestic abuse) but it seems wrong to generalize on that maybe?


----------



## SueC (Sep 17, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> What does women understanding men have to do with society, though? Like, how does that work? Can you give an example of something about men that women have a unique insight into because of 'society'?
> 
> I don't dismiss the existence of gender differences at all, I'm just not sure how they provide the insight. I can see that social inequality allows women a special insight into the way other _women_ might think...but not men.



It may not be that way any longer, but I would say that in the past, understanding men was part of a women's "job" and she could do well in life the more she understood or knew about the men in her life. For so long women were encouraged from the cradle, practically, to pay attention to and center their world around the men in their lives. I was married to a man who was the oldest of six children. The next three after him were girls, and they would often tell me horror stories of their mother insisting that they clean their older brother's bedroom on a weekly basis. He had to do nothing. Old food, dirty laundry, smelly things - oh the drama!  But this was how an older brother was treated in that family, which means my mother-in-law grew up thinking this was the way a brother should be treated, and so she trained her girls. Society saw this as appropriate behavior in those days. Society saw nothing wrong with teaching women to do everything they could to make life more pleasant for men. 

Men, for their part, just labeled us "unfathomable," a mystery and so didn't bother discovering more about us. 

Women had no interest in what other females might think, but because they were women they knew anyway. It might have been that look of knowledge between two women that began the first women's rights movement.

So today, we have sitcoms with single moms who have no need or desire to cowtow to men in any way, shape or form. They rebel against male bosses, teachers in school, and insist their daughters disregard personal wants of the men in their lives, to even hold them in disdain. Their idea of equality means the men in their lives better "man up" when they are having a bad day. They are a selfish lot.  

(I say that with great affection for all of my grandgirls)


----------



## Matchu (Sep 21, 2020)

My wife doesn't even read any longer, mainly sucking Netflix crap in her kitchen.  

Walk into scene for refill; two twenty-somethings simulate intercourse on the screen before catching their murderer.  Man-shamed at this juncture: 'porn, porn, porn!' is my dance of victory. I return to my attic, watching the numbers on my shortwave radio, an endless looping of numbers 1-9, mesmerising for mankind.

Between us, I at least, read about 5000 words a week of war violence and politics to maintain the tradition of reading as an art form pursuit.


----------



## Amnesiac (Sep 24, 2020)

Karin Slaughter, Lee Child, Haruki Murakami, S.E. Hinton, Kazuo Ishiguro, Joe Hill... I probably read more male authors than I do, female. But like someone else said, I look at the storyline first, and if it appeals to me, I read it. Currently reading a couple of classics and a couple of Frank Peretti books. (I usually have three or four books going at any given time...)


----------



## Tiamat (Sep 25, 2020)

This thread made me super curious, so I checked my Goodreads history for 2020. Of the 42 books I've read so far this year, 15 of them were by men and the rest women. I tend to be most inclined (at least within the last couple of years) towards literary fiction, and I think there's a tendency for female authors to write in that space more than men. Now, I could be 100% making that up, but like some others have said, I basically never consider the gender of the author when deciding whether to read a book I've never read before by an author I've never heard of. I also think (and I may even be able to back this one up) that there's a real drive in the publishing industry to include more marginalized voices, which includes women and most especially women of color and LGBTQ+ women. Most of the books I buy are recently published, and if the trend really is to publish more marginalized voices, it makes sense that I'm reading more of them.  

To the OP and the question of men's books versus women's books, I'm reading "Eat Pray Love" right now (which is neither new nor the first time I'm reading it) and I would contend that it's a book written predominately for women. That's not to say I don't think a man could enjoy it. It's quite a good book, and Elizabeth Gilbert has a humorous, quirky, down to earth writing style that's rather enjoyable. But given that it's a narrative nonfiction novel about a woman who, after her marriage falls apart due to her lack of desire to have children, spends a year living abroad to find herself, it just feels like the target audience does not intentionally include dudes. I'm sure there are books out there whose target audience does not intentionally include chicks, too. I just can't think of one (probably because I've never read it).


----------



## Turnbull (Sep 27, 2020)

Uh, well, there's male and female demographic books, meant more for one gender than another.  Or is this defined purely by which gender the author is?

I read more male authors, generally because I read more nonfiction, hard science or history for research.  Not as many women in those fields.  I've been meaning to read some CJ Cherryh, but never got around to it.  Honestly, I just think male voices are generally better, as men are more likely to have objective and straightforward narrative voices, which I crave.  Not that that means all men I read are good writers.  I'm reading a book on Rhodesia now, and the author, Peter Baxter, is straight up terrible.  It's full of speculation and assessment, when all I want is the facts.  And fanciful narrative in nonfiction is anathema.  

Well, thanks for the reminder to go get some CJ Cherryh.  If anyone thinks up any good, hard sci fi authors I need to check out, feel free to name some.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 27, 2020)

Turnbull said:


> Uh, well, there's male and female demographic books, meant more for one gender than another.  Or is this defined purely by which gender the author is?
> 
> I read more male authors, generally because I read more nonfiction, hard science or history for research.  Not as many women in those fields.  I've been meaning to read some CJ Cherryh, but never got around to it.  Honestly, I just think male voices are generally better, as men are more likely to have objective and straightforward narrative voices, which I crave.  Not that that means all men I read are good writers.  I'm reading a book on Rhodesia now, and the author, Peter Baxter, is straight up terrible.  It's full of speculation and assessment, when all I want is the facts.  And fanciful narrative in nonfiction is anathema.
> 
> Well, thanks for the reminder to go get some CJ Cherryh.  If anyone thinks up any good, hard sci fi authors I need to check out, feel free to name some.



I was thinking the gender of the author, books aimed at a male or female demographic I tend to think of going out of fashion in in the late nineteen fifties, though I expect there are still some. I guess it is true that there are not as many women publishing in non-fiction fields like hard science and history. I do wonder if women find it harder to get published, I notice when names are listed the woman always comes at the end, Crick, Watson, Wilkins and Franklin for example, and I bet they find it harder right from the beginning applying for research jobs. There is a general assumption that women and black people have been liberated just because they are allowed to own property and vote, oh dear.


----------



## Turnbull (Sep 27, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> I was thinking the gender of the author, books aimed at a male or female demographic I tend to think of going out of fashion in in the late nineteen fifties, though I expect there are still some. I guess it is true that there are not as many women publishing in non-fiction fields like hard science and history. I do wonder if women find it harder to get published, I notice when names are listed the woman always comes at the end, Crick, Watson, Wilkins and Franklin for example, and I bet they find it harder right from the beginning applying for research jobs. There is a general assumption that women and black people have been liberated just because they are allowed to own property and vote, oh dear.



....Or, women are just less inclined toward the sciences through their own psychology, biology, and personal choices.  Nothing's holding women back in a country like America.  And no, demographic books have not disappeared.  All things will generally appeal more to one demographic or another, even if it's not terribly obvious to a person paying only mild attention.  Women are bigger readers of personal growth and true crime, whereas men are bigger readers of history and metalworking/power tool crafts.  When I say male or female demographic, I mean those the author are intentionally trying to aim at or think their work will appeal to the most.  For example, the writer of Azumanga Daioh is a male, but given how cutesy and emotionally thoughtful it is, it's more likely to appeal to girls.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 28, 2020)

Turnbull said:


> ....Or, women are just less inclined toward the sciences through their own psychology, biology, and personal choices.  Nothing's holding women back in a country like America.



This is possibly an unavoidable byproduct of threads like this, but it absolutely activates my instinct to disagree. Since the debate would be a total derail for the thread I will refrain, except to say... I disagree.



> And no, demographic books have not disappeared.  All things will generally appeal more to one demographic or another, even if it's not terribly obvious to a person paying only mild attention.  Women are bigger readers of personal growth and true crime, whereas men are bigger readers of history and metalworking/power tool crafts.  When I say male or female demographic, I mean those the author are intentionally trying to aim at or think their work will appeal to the most.  For example, the writer of Azumanga Daioh is a male, but given how cutesy and emotionally thoughtful it is, it's more likely to appeal to girls.



Do you have any evidence that Azumanga Daioh actually DOES appeal more to girls? That would be a useful contribution to the discussion. I don't follow manga, but Wikipedia has six _male_ critics praising the series, with no female critics saying anything. I skimmed two threads on animenewsnetwork.com in which the general consensus, in so far as their was one, was that the series was popular with males in Japan but marketed to females in the US. I read a TV Tropes article that said the anime was a faithful reproduction of the manga, and the manga was published in a magazine aimed at Japanese boys. I saw another TV Tropes article in which Azumanga Daioh was used as an example of "Shonen", which apparently means it was aimed at young boys. Then I clawed my way out of this peculiar rabbit hole I'd fallen into!

The point is - I think your assumption that this anime is more likely to appeal to girls may not be accurate. Or it may be accurate only in certain circumstances, cultures, etc. What appeals to Japanese boys may be more likely to appeal to American girls, or may be _thought_ more likely to appeal to American girls. etc.

I think marketing plays a role in all of this, obviously. And marketing is heavily influenced by the culture. But does that say anything about the actual content of the books themselves? I'm not at all sure it does.


----------



## Turnbull (Sep 28, 2020)

Bayview said:


> This is possibly an unavoidable byproduct of threads like this, but it absolutely activates my instinct to disagree. Since the debate would be a total derail for the thread I will refrain, except to say... I disagree.



Disagree all ya' like.  The fact of the matter is that women have things far better in 1st world nations than ever before, and if you ignore this, well, you may ignore history at your leisure.




> Do you have any evidence that Azumanga Daioh actually DOES appeal more to girls? That would be a useful contribution to the discussion. I don't follow manga, but Wikipedia has six _male_ critics praising the series, with no female critics saying anything. I skimmed two threads on animenewsnetwork.com in which the general consensus, in so far as their was one, was that the series was popular with males in Japan but marketed to females in the US. I read a TV Tropes article that said the anime was a faithful reproduction of the manga, and the manga was published in a magazine aimed at Japanese boys. I saw another TV Tropes article in which Azumanga Daioh was used as an example of "Shonen", which apparently means it was aimed at young boys. Then I clawed my way out of this peculiar rabbit hole I'd fallen into!
> 
> The point is - I think your assumption that this anime is more likely to appeal to girls may not be accurate. Or it may be accurate only in certain circumstances, cultures, etc. What appeals to Japanese boys may be more likely to appeal to American girls, or may be _thought_ more likely to appeal to American girls. etc.
> 
> I think marketing plays a role in all of this, obviously. And marketing is heavily influenced by the culture. But does that say anything about the actual content of the books themselves? I'm not at all sure it does.



Ah, my mistake.  Azumanga was perhaps not the best example.  However, my overall point stands.  Women tend to have certain preferences, and men tend to have others.  This is basic marketing.  While there is certainly some crossover, because men and women are inherently different, the things they like will also differ.  As I said, women do in fact prefer true crime, and I have never once been asked to help a woman find books on metal plating or wire work.  Likewise, how many men read romance novels?

I'm not trying to make some controversial point here.  This is basic stuff.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 29, 2020)

The assertation that women are disinclined toward male dominated subjects because of their biology is rubbish, this is cultural. My sister in law had a degree in engineering, the young lady I worked with as a volunteer at Hay festival was studying the same subject, both were feminine in other respects, it was just what interested them. When I was a little boy we had a woman doctor as our GP, this was a deliberate choice on the part of my father, "There is so much prejudice against women in the medical profession they have to be really good to qualify."  Seventy years later I would not be surprised to discover that  the numbers of trainee doctors are equal, male and female. 

I don't deny that there is a tendency for women writers to have a more emotive emphasis in their work, but I would deny that there is anything but a social basis in this, or in the male/female readership appreciation of it. Men who are 'In touch with their feminine side' are not 'all a bunch of poufs' in my book, just a bit ahead of the game,. I may not read romance novels, but neither do I watch 'Top gear', I don't have to go to cultural extremes to find plenty of books by men and women that I do want to read.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 29, 2020)

Turnbull said:


> Ah, my mistake.  Azumanga was perhaps not the best example.  However, my overall point stands.  Women tend to have certain preferences, and men tend to have others.  *This is basic marketing. * While there is certainly some crossover, because men and women are inherently different, the things they like will also differ.  As I said, women do in fact prefer true crime, and I have never once been asked to help a woman find books on metal plating or wire work.  Likewise, how many men read romance novels?



Bolding mine. Because, yes, I agree, we do tend to market things based on gender. But I really don't think it makes sense to look at the decisions of marketers as some sort of ultimate truth about humanity. I suspect even marketers would say that they are responding to social trends, not to deeper biological truths. A century ago, marketers suggested that baby boys should be dressed in pink, a "strong" colour, and baby girls in blue, a "feminine" colour. Today, marketers have reversed that ruling. I don't believe the intrinsic nature of boys or girls has changed over that time. Just marketing.

Similarly, there were times in history when novels of any sort were not considered appropriate for women. Instead, they were pushed toward religious writing, instructional manuals, and, if they were lucky, poetry. The term "marketing" may not yet have been invented, but it was similar forces at work. Novels were not marketed toward women, and women had to work hard to be able to read them at all. Today, women are apparently 80% of the fiction market.

So, yes, there are interesting patterns of readership in the modern world, and some of these patterns are based on gender. I think it's good for writers to be aware of that. But it doesn't make sense, to me, to go beyond that simple observation and conclude that "because men and women are inherently different, the things they like will also differ." If men and women are _inherently_ different, why have there been so many changes in the patterns through history?


----------



## Joker (Sep 29, 2020)

Bayview said:


> If men and women are _inherently_ different, why have there been so many changes in the patterns through history?



Most gender roles throughout history are remarkably stable. Exceptions prove the rule.

Let me flip this on its head: if men and women _weren't_ inherently different and _all _differences were socially-engineered... where the hell are these "socially engineered" differences coming from then? Everyone just decided it one day in a fit of madness? And if you blame it on men, you're acknowledging that men are inherently different.

I'm a libertarian and I think everyone should be able to do whatever they want, but the idea that men and women don't _generally _prefer certain things and that sex differences just magically stop at the neck is just... _that's _socially engineered.


----------



## SueC (Sep 29, 2020)

Joker said:


> Most gender roles throughout history are remarkably stable. Exceptions prove the rule.
> 
> Let me flip this on its head: if men and women _weren't_ inherently different and _all _differences were socially-engineered... where the hell are these "socially engineered" differences coming from then? Everyone just decided it one day in a fit of madness? And if you blame it on men, you're acknowledging that men are inherently different.
> 
> I'm a libertarian and I think everyone should be able to do whatever they want, but the idea that men and women don't _generally _prefer certain things and that sex differences just magically stop at the neck is just... _that's _socially engineered.



I like this, Joker. I think this issue is much more complex that we all assume, because its almost impossible to identify the defining moment when certain behaviors become part of a person's makeup, or why. I recent watched the most recent version of Pride & Prejudice and was amazed at how limited women were in their roles at that time, and how a man's expectations of women in general dictated their behavior. And then along would come that "exception that proved the rule" and we'd have some entertainment.

When my two older children (girls) were little, their dad made them beds for their dolls. He bought the lumber, put them together as men do, and I provided the bedding, making them cute. When we gave them to the girls, my oldest daughter asked "what am I supposed to do with this?" I'm probably paraphrasing, but that is what I remember. I was surprised and as I started to explain, I realized if I had to explain, the joy of having such a thing probably wasn't there for her. So, you may ask, are girls who don't know what to do with dolls destined to be the exception? She is now the mother of three adopted children, so even though she gave a cold shoulder to parenting dolls, and did not have the biological benefit of birthing her own children, she is an awesome mom! (And an extremely successful department chair at a major hospital). We raised all of our children to be confident, articulate, educated and kind. Except for that one time, we rarely categorized their activities by gender.

 Just my two cents; nice discussion.


----------



## Joker (Sep 29, 2020)

SueC said:


> I like this, Joker. I think this issue is much more complex that we all assume, because its almost impossible to identify the defining moment when certain behaviors become part of a person's makeup, or why. I recent watched the most recent version of Pride & Prejudice and was amazed at how limited women were in their roles at that time, and how a man's expectations of women in general dictated their behavior. And then along would come that "exception that proved the rule" and we'd have some entertainment.
> 
> When my two older children (girls) were little, their dad made them beds for their dolls. He bought the lumber, put them together as men do, and I provided the bedding, making them cute. When we gave them to the girls, my oldest daughter asked "what am I supposed to do with this?" I'm probably paraphrasing, but that is what I remember. I was surprised and as I started to explain, I realized if I had to explain, the joy of having such a thing probably wasn't there for her. So, you may ask, are girls who don't know what to do with dolls destined to be the exception? She is now the mother of three adopted children, so even though she gave a cold shoulder to parenting dolls, and did not have the biological benefit of birthing her own children, she is an awesome mom! (And an extremely successful department chair at a major hospital). We raised all of our children to be confident, articulate, educated and kind. Except for that one time, we rarely categorized their activities by gender.
> 
> Just my two cents; nice discussion.



Yep yep. I think people should look at the perspective of Russian women. Obviously there are still problems there, but by and large women still have it much better than in Soviet times. Back then, women worked in the factories alongside men because they _had_ to. It was that, or starve. Now that Russia is relatively more wealthy and free, women have, by and large, quit those traditionally masculine jobs of their own free will.

If a woman _wants_ to work a traditionally masculine job, that's great. That's where I differ from tradcons who think men and women MUST fulfill certain roles ALL of the time. But it's foolish to expect that every career field be divided perfectly evenly between men and women. It will never happen outside of a Stalinist dystopia.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 29, 2020)

Joker said:


> Most gender roles throughout history are remarkably stable. Exceptions prove the rule.
> 
> Let me flip this on its head: if men and women _weren't_ inherently different and _all _differences were socially-engineered... where the hell are these "socially engineered" differences coming from then? Everyone just decided it one day in a fit of madness? And if you blame it on men, you're acknowledging that men are inherently different.
> 
> I'm a libertarian and I think everyone should be able to do whatever they want, but the idea that men and women don't _generally _prefer certain things and that sex differences just magically stop at the neck is just... _that's _socially engineered.



What are the differences that you think are inherent and immutable?


----------



## TheManx (Sep 29, 2020)

I’m guessing roles were initially defined by physical strength and child bearing — those are the only “inherent” things I can think of. All the social constructs stem from those...


----------



## Turnbull (Sep 29, 2020)

Bayview said:


> If men and women are _inherently_ different, why have there been so many changes in the patterns through history?



Because  gender is not the only thing that dictates change.  Technology changes,  weather changes, food availability changes, science changes....It's  almost as if viewing the entire world through one lens is terribly  narrow.  Besides, it's not about whether a given color is masculine or feminine, it's about the fact that distinctive "male" and "female" colors exist at the same time.  Despite the fact that no color has a real gender, the fact that we subjectively perceive colors as such is a reflection of how humanity views the world and the two genders in it.



Bayview said:


> What are the differences that you think are inherent and immutable?



1. Men have bigger brains with fewer connections between the halves of the brain.
2.  Women see color better, men see in darkness better.
3.  Men have more testosterone, the muscle-building hormone.
4.  Women on average are more flexible than men.
5.  Women are better at communicating emotions.
6.  From very young ages, boys tend to focus on objects and spacial reckoning, while girls tend to focus more on faces.  
7.  Speech develops faster and better in women than in men.
8.  The "left brain logic, right brain artistic" is a male characteristic.  Women's brain halves both light up for both types of activities.
9.  Aggression is a male form of communication; when boys fight, they tend to become better friends afterward.  For women, physical fights are the ends of friendships.
10.  The resting place of the female brain is at a higher point of the brain than the male resting place.  As a result, women tend to think more (and overthink more), while men are more physically impulsive than women.  This is the cause of the "dad instinct" seen in so many memes.
11.  Women have babies and men do not.
12.  Women are more vulnerable to STDs than men (has to do with surface area of sexual organs) and there is even an STD that is asymptomatic in men, but very painful for women.
13.  Apparently women's teenage antisocial behavior is linked to puberty, and will peak at about two years after her first period.  Men do not show a similar trend.  
14.  According to big 5 theory, men are more conscientious and women are higher in neuroticism.

I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.


----------



## Joker (Sep 29, 2020)

Bayview said:


> What are the differences that you think are inherent and immutable?




It's not a matter of me "thinking" anything. It's like the left says about climate change existing: the science is settled. There are structural sexual differences in the human brain and endocrine system, just like with every other muscle and organ, that lead to psychological ones. And 2+2 is 4.

Men have better spacial awareness, while women are better at discerning color. Females have better sensorial memory. Males are more aggressive due to testosterone production. Males have far more grey matter while females have far more white matter, which is why females are better at multi-tasking, while men are more hyper-focused on a single task. And I really shouldn't have to "mansplain" menstrual hormones...

I repeat myself: why would the brain and endocrine system be the only organs somehow exempt from sexual dimorphism?

EDIT: Damn, I got ninja'd hard, lol.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 29, 2020)

I don't want to go through the list, but number six jumped out at me. there was a bit of research where people were given a baby to look after for a short time, some dressed as boys, some as girls, though that was not necessarily what they were. Those who thought they were looking after boys gave them things and praised them as soon as they took hold of it, those who thought their charge was a girl showed them things and said things like 'look, isn't it pretty', but often actively discouraged them from trying to hold it. This sort of thing starts at a very young age, often within days of being born, it sets up responses in the child which are totally ingrained, so much so that they appear inherent, but they are not.


----------



## Joker (Sep 29, 2020)

Turnbull said:


> 11.  Women have babies and men do not.



[video=youtube_share;vAc5JqcBPK8]https://youtu.be/vAc5JqcBPK8[/video]


----------



## Joker (Sep 29, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> I don't want to go through the list, but number six jumped out at me. there was a bit of research where people were given a baby to look after for a short time, some dressed as boys, some as girls, though that was not necessarily what they were. Those who thought they were looking after boys gave them things and praised them as soon as they took hold of it, those who thought their charge was a girl showed them things and said things like 'look, isn't it pretty', but often actively discouraged them from trying to hold it. This sort of thing starts at a very young age, often within days of being born, it sets up responses in the child which are totally ingrained, so much so that they appear inherent, but they are not.


Again: why is social conditioning somehow arising in a vacuum and not from inherent differences in the sexes?


----------



## Turnbull (Sep 29, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> I don't want to go through the list, but number six jumped out at me. there was a bit of research where people were given a baby to look after for a short time, some dressed as boys, some as girls, though that was not necessarily what they were. Those who thought they were looking after boys gave them things and praised them as soon as they took hold of it, those who thought their charge was a girl showed them things and said things like 'look, isn't it pretty', but often actively discouraged them from trying to hold it. This sort of thing starts at a very young age, often within days of being born, it sets up responses in the child which are totally ingrained, so much so that they appear inherent, but they are not.



I've read enough books on the matter.  Studies show that these traits are not conditioned, and show up even when the child is younger than a year.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 30, 2020)

Okay, this has almost nothing to do with the OP and there is little future in arguing with the convinced, as for authorities they are always available, Aristotle started the 'inferior race who are better off enslaved by a kindly master" argument and was taken up by some very prestigious names, so let's agree to disagree.

Read any good books lately? Were they written by the same sex as you? Do you read books by both sexes or stick firmly to your own? If the latter do you ever get the feeling you could be missing out on some really good reading? Would George Elliot fool you?


----------



## Joker (Sep 30, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Read any good books lately? Were they written by the same sex as you? Do you read books by both sexes or stick firmly to your own? If the latter do you ever get the feeling you could be missing out on some really good reading? Would George Elliot fool you?



I didn't intentionally set out to only read books written by men the last year or so, it just happened. 

Considering I almost exclusively read sci-fi and fantasy, I don't think I'm really missing anything. If I stumble across a book written by a woman that looks cool, that's fine, but I don't think women have more insight when it comes to space aliens and magical wizards. That might be different if I were into personal dramas. A detective book written from a female perspective might also be cool.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 30, 2020)

Joker said:


> A detective book written from a female perspective might also be cool.



There was a little group of women centered on Britain who wrote detective novels in the 40's and 50's, a bit dated, but the writing is good. Agatha Christie is the best known, and endlessly adapted to screens large and small, but Dorothy Sayers and Margery Allingham have slightly different styles and can both give a good read, Ngaio Marsh gets included with them, though she was from New Zealand. It strikes me these are the sort of thing you would probably find on audio for free, which could be cool.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 1, 2020)

Funny to me how invested people are in proving how men and women are different — or the same...


----------



## Turnbull (Oct 1, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Okay, this has almost nothing to do with the OP and there is little future in arguing with the convinced, as for authorities they are always available, Aristotle started the 'inferior race who are better off enslaved by a kindly master" argument and was taken up by some very prestigious names, so let's agree to disagree.



That's a very classy way to dodge having to make an argument for your position.  I'll allow it, even though your Aristotle quote has nothing to do with anything. 

Speaking of George Eliot, here is her commentary on female writers of her day:
https://www.literaryladiesguide.com/literary-musings/silly-novels-lady-novelists-george-eliot-1856/


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 2, 2020)

The Aristotle reference was because someone said they had read some very prestigious writers who maintained that women were inherently different, my intention was to show you can find a prestigious name to support almost any argument, it does not necessarily make it so.

The George Eliot article is interesting, this struck me,


> Eliot also blasted the ‘lady novelists for their poor writing styles, claiming that they substituted “vagueness for depth, bombast for eloquence, and affectation for originality.”


There are a few here who could learn from that; not all women


----------



## Turnbull (Oct 2, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> The Aristotle reference was because someone said they had read some very prestigious writers who maintained that women were inherently different, my intention was to show you can find a prestigious name to support almost any argument, it does not necessarily make it so.



Who in the world mentioned prestigious names besides you by mentioning Aristotle?  I brought up facts.  Whatever man.  If that's the way you "debate", then I'm out.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 3, 2020)

Turnbull said:


> I've read enough books on the matter.  Studies show that these traits are not conditioned, and show up even when the child is younger than a year.



Sorry, it was my assumption that they were books by someone with some authority and prestige in the subject and my point was that even the best known can be very wrong sometimes. My understanding was that quite a few traits can be conditioned into a child in their first year of life.

The thread is not intended to debate anything, but to discover if people select their reading by the gender of the author.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 3, 2020)

My reading is predominately non-fiction these days. If that's the right designation for nineteenth century American history. Anyway, the part of my book collection where it's easy to tote up author gender is there. Going by author it's about 3:2 for men but that raises to almost 4:1 by volumes. (I didn't check pages.) I do make an effort to read some histories from earlier parts of the last century, when women academicians were rarer, and treatments often run to multiple volumes. ------ If I may be allowed a an off-topic word on the subject of sexual dimorphism, I would just point out that distinctions made on that basis are the means of distributions with considerable overlap. Most women are stronger than at least some man, and some women are stronger than most men, and the area of overlap is great. Even on the question of giving birth, something like a tenth of women also can't give birth. And of course, as is always the case in the chemistry of biology, there is enough variability in the expression of the pathways to preclude unalterable generalities in this arena as well.


----------

