Title. Why is philosophy and other science so "men-coded" whilst fantasy and novels "women-coded". It seems to imply radically different conceptions of the medium at hand.
>>25196761>UMMMM ARE MEN AND WOMEN DIFFERENT OR SOMETHING????Yes, women are retarded.
>implying comics and graphic novels are two different things
>>25196761This doesn't men that men and women do not read the same things ever. It just means that there are large associations between sex and reading interest. Because men and women are different!
>>25196761Worth noting that 99% of 'philosophy' entries on goodreads are self-help sloppa that managed to sneak their way into the philosophy section.
>>25196761Very dishonest image. It's just the odds of any given reader of that genre being male or female, and it's a log scale too.There's loads of overlap. But the image makes it look as though men and women are totally separate.
>>25196789Oh my god i did not notice the log scale. Basically means that men are around 10-30 times more likely to read philosophy/comics/scifi while Women are like 100-300 times more likely to read romance. I think this tracks with the stat that women just read way more than men in general. When men read, they are slightly more prone to philosophy/comics/scifi, but this is not super significant, while seemingly like half of the publishing industry is driven by romance novels only women read.
>>25196801Yeah, part of the reason women read so much is because it’s pretty much porn or video games for them given how the books catered to them is billionaire werewolf rapes plain femcel or some YA/genre slop. Oh and if any want to make the claim that they enjoy classic literature they’ll read Austen or Bronte
>>25196761>ReferenceWhat's reference?>philosophy and other sciencePhilosophy isn't a science, anon.>>25196786Another proof that all men are bugmen trying to maximize the profits of their masters.
>>25196761In my experience, women tend to treat reading more as a form of entertainment, if not exclusively so. They pick up a book and unironically expect to have a pleasant time, much as one watches a series. As such fiction is generally overrepresented, with romance taking the lion's share. They want Melrose Place on paper. I have not encountered a comparable pattern among men. They do entertain themselves like anyone else, of course, but reading seems less of an acceptable pastime. There is a notion of “culture” that seems to escape many women and that men are looking for when they pick a book.
>>25196761Because men and women aren’t equal blank slates and have divergent interests.
>>25196761men and women have different distributions of interestI think this graph is somewhat deceptive.The odds ratio (male reviews/ female reviews) will be more extreme for niche genres with low reviews in general.For example, philosophy and historical romance. Conversely the popular stuff fall in the middle like Fantasy and Fiction.Yes the graph reflects differences in tastes between the genders that do exist, but it is also influenced by how popular the genre is generally.For example, manga and comics/graphic novels are quite distant even though they ought to be similar. Thriller and Mystery Thriller are also far from each other.Having said that maybe the gap is as wide as the graph suggests if it's log10 and there are actually a 10000+ reviews for the philosophy genre.
>>25196819Reference works?Where's your picrel from?
>>25196761
>>25196819>Another proof that all men are bugmen trying to maximize the profits of their masters.not a real correlation there. going by your suggestion then Plato is complicit in capitalism, which didn't actually exist in his time prior to the industrial revolution. If I wanted to take it further I could even say reading Marx contributes to capitalism and then you're fucked, as Marx is tentatively philosophy.
>>25196761I'm retarded and don't understand how to interpret this graph. Is it saying that historical romance readers are more than 2x likely to be female, and readers of philosophy are almost twice as liketto be male?
>>25196786>I’M IMPROOOOOVIN
>>25198389It’s logarithmic so it’s much worse, see:>>25196801
>>25198383>going by your suggestion then Plato is complicit in capitalismThey aren't reading Plato, lmao. Have you even seen what the other anon posted? Philosophy on Goodreads equals to self help sloppa.
>>25198411to be fair I was just trying to aggravate him. but I got a response so good enough.
>>25196930>Men shelf reference worksKek if true.>Where's your picrel from?Fable, the app. It's basically a Goodreads alternative. It's good if you don't read stuff that is too obscure, because otherwise those books lack a genre.It's mostly made for cataloguing romance books, it's kinda useless to switch from Goodreads if you don't read them.
>>25196761>It seems to imply radically different conceptions of the medium at hand.YOU NEED TO KILL YOURSELF, OFC MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT WTF IS THIS TREAD
>>25196761they arent.Idiot
ummm sweaty there is no a difference between a man and woman but there is but there isn't but there is tho. Stop being so fatphobic.
>>25196789Women mostly read porn, retard.
>>25196786This. Men are not reading Plato or some shit. They're reading "Wash your dick"
>>25196820I'm a man and I read for entertainment.
>>25199636>PornErotica*Don't mix up the two.If anyone is reading pornographic novels, that's men.
>>25196761Considering how nearly equal the demographic for fiction is on this chart it's confusing to why women shit on men so much for not reading fiction. I also noticed that it seems like the male preferred genres are moreso centered around things that men are interested in learning about (History, Philosophy, Religion, Politics, Science), or genres they find entertaining (sci-fi, horror, comics, graphic novels) whereas women's preferred genres are almost all seemingly escapism fantasies perhaps spurred by their lack of fulfillment in their romantic endeavors (literally half of their list is various forms of romance). It makes me think about things in a sort of "chicken or the egg" kind of way. Were women driven to romance novels due to unfulfilling romantic relationships or do women only find their romantic relationships unfulfilling because they compare them to unrealistic romance novels? Also was flabbergasted when I saw Manga on the women's side. Although could that just be that men who read Manga typically only read Manga as their only books and are less likely to use Goodreads?
>>25199821Whats the difference? I've never once seen or heard of any men reading pornographic novels, is it just that men recognize that it's not something to flaunt around in public? I always just assumed men were more visually aroused while women can more easily get off to the thoughts of a sexual encounter conveyed in text form.
>>25196761Whats the difference between historical and history? And before you say it's just historically based stories, well the graph also lists historical fiction as its own thing.
>>25199860>Whats the differencePicrel has two passages that should give you an idea of the difference between the two genres.>I've never once seen or heard of any men reading pornographic novelsBecause there are very few pornographic novels, and practically none are getting published nowadays. Besides Sade, I can't think of any other author that can be described as pornographic.However, I've seen anons on /lit/ talking about Sade countless times, while not a single woman on BookTok read him (probably they don't even know who that is). Hence my sentence that men are the only ones reading pornographic novels.>is it just that men recognize that it's not something to flaunt around in public?Pornography is retarded. Everyone hates pornography for its baseness.Erotica has always been elevated to extreme heights: the Bible contains erotic poetry, anon. Read the Song of Songs, if you haven't already.>I always just assumed men were more visually aroused while women can more easily get off to the thoughts of a sexual encounter conveyed in text form.I wouldn't say that. First of all, men *could* jerk off to visual erotica too, but they don't do that. They jerk off to porn. Which is quite pathetic and sad, since the average erotic model is way better looking than the best looking porn actress. Daily reminder: Marilyn Monroe did a couple photoshoots for Playboy (and no one criticized her for that, because erotica is art).Secondly, no one jerks off to erotica, not even women. That shit makes them horny, but then they mostly use their imagination to jerk off. They put down the book before doing so. You gotta realise that these books are 400+ pages long, there is no way a woman would be able to hold a brick like that while jerking off.
>>25198375
>>25199821You're overthinking this. Men watch porn, women read porn.
>>25196761men win and it's not even close
>>25196786i wonder how many of those mindless automatons will screech about gatekeeping if you prove that these books have nothing in common with philosophy. it's business sense meets pop psychology at best.
>>25200192i'm okay with women reading porn as long as A) they also read some litfic as well, and B) the porn they read makes them more feminine/submissive in the bedroom
>>25200418Too bad she bogged.
>>25200391>/lit/anon can't stop thinking about porn>Thinks everyone should do the sameGoycattle mentality.
>>25199650Then why does goodreads lie about it? They should make something physically preventing someone from tagging anything thats not from Oxford or Cambridge press from being tagged that way.
>>25198405I remember when I was in community college in 2015 thinking "the subtle art of not giving a fuck" was the best shit ever. That was a very different time for me. I think I read more stuff back then too.
>>25199821>EroticaThat's word women use to obfuscate the fact that what they read is disgusting unaesthetic pornography with no redeemable narrative or structural or linguistical qualities. By the strict definition of pornography (describing thing whores do) and erotica (aesthetic appreciation and approach to sexual arts), women read porn. Disgusting, bottom of the barrel, Syphilitic EbolAIDS infected 70 year old Estonian PCP whore end of the red light district porn.>t. read "romances", read "fanfiction romances", wrote "romances" (for money)Only a braindead brainfucked castrated simp would call female romance erotica. It's porn. As disgusting as visual porn, with the somatic focus veiled by trashy trope ridden romance. >Oooh, it's not porn, baby, because between fuck 1 and fuck 2 there are 50 pages of romance drama that I skip anyway, teeheeFemale romance offers a direct window into a femoid's degenerate clitoris driven soul, who thinks of nothing but power and money and violence and cock, and how such abhorrent and disgusting female core is hidden and buried through the use of fake romantic and virginal images and lies.
>>25201109>>t. read "romances", read "fanfiction romances", wrote "romances" (for money)Back to your containment board, tranny. YWNBAM, kys, seethe and stop dilating.Picrelling what I already told you last time.
