This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've ranted about the problems with having a female-dominated publishing pipeline before... and I'll fucking do it again! I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I'd already written this all up for a submission to the /r/books subreddit so I figured I'd repost it here. (And the /r/books people made me take out all the links and remove the part where I used AI for a relatively unbiased analysis of manuscript wish list profiles so I wanted to repost this version to a place that would appreciate it.)
Anyway--
Why Boys Don't Read Anymore
I can't go into a supermarket novel aisle without seeing three full shelves of romantasy novels about plucky young women with magical powers drawing the obsessive affections of foreboding but ultimately caring men. So where are the novels about clueless but good-hearted losers reincarnating into rpg worlds with a special skill that makes them irresistable to a harem of ninja babes?
...okay, I see how that complaint can sound ridiculous, but I am honestly and totally serious. It feels like publishing companies are making absolutely no effort to find and print books young men might actually like, and very naturally boys end up drifting away from reading toward hobbies where they might actually be catered toward. Let me substantiate that by talking about my experiences a little...
I've always been a voracious reader. As a kid I was already addicted to The Magic Tree House, Redwall, Eragon, Warrior Cats, Percy Jackson, Maximum Ride, Harry Potter, Uglies, and so on and so forth. Entering middle school I transitioned quite naturally into reading and writing fanfiction. I focused mostly on male-dominated fandoms like Naruto, Pokemon, and My Little Pony, but still had plenty of exposure to female-dominated fandoms like Twilight and Harry Potter. A few decades on, it feels like the tropes pioneered in the female-dominate fandoms have graduated to the bookstores and awards lists: I don't have to look far to see Dracomione-alike dark academia or shifter romances with heat cycles. But where are the rewritten naruto revenge fics? Where is all the My Little Pony-inspired first-contact sci-fi? Why do none of the monsterfucking novels involve sick tournament arcs? LitRPGs have become by FAR the dominant genre on Royaload... but their only printed representative is Dungeon Crawler Carl-- which specifically avoids or subverts many of the tropes common to the genre. In the meantime, the other branches of the Progression Fantasy tree have remained completely neglected. The Xianxia fad rose and fell without publishers even noticing. Rational/ist fiction like The Methods of Rationality, Friendship is Optimal, and UNSONG inspired an entire generation of AI researchers. You are entirely likely to have your values forcibly re-aligned toward friendship and ponies because of a genre you never had the chance to hear about.
This isn't about the gender of the protagonist, either! Worm is incredibly famous online in male-dominated fanfiction spaces. So is A Practical Guide to Evil. Both those novels feature female protagonists, and both of these novels have dedicated fanfiction communities that reveal a substantial latent demand for retreads of the themes, plots, and character archetypes they feature. And while I wish I could blame this whole issue on male flight to video games, manga, and webtoons, that entire argument would instantly fall apart-- There is no shortage of yaoi manga, villainess webtoons, and cozy games to draw the attention of women, and yet all of those same tropes also make their way into traditionally published novels.
And finally, this isn't about fiction versus non-fiction. Nonfiction is stereotypes as being more appealing to men, but that's not actually true. Women tend to read different genres of nonfiction than men-- women's lit and spirituality in place of, say, popular history... but Women still read more nonfiction in total than men.
No, this problem is rooted in the publishers-- and in particular the preferences of the people who become agents and acquisition editors. I've been trying to get published lately*, and in the process had a look through manuscript wishlist, which is where literary agents and editors post their wishlists for what kind of tropes, plots, and characters they want in. Having read so many profiles... the gender ratio of agents, and especially newer agents/agents open to debut authors is incredibly skewed toward women. And, exactly as that skew implies, the proportion of profiles even hypothetically open to male-targeted books is a faction of the proportion of profiles open to women-targeted books. Similarly, even comparing within the same profile, agents and editors spend a greater proportion of their time soliciting women-targeted books as opposed to male-targeted books. (Excluding requests that are gender neutral in nature.) As an experiment, I filtered for profiles that were interested in sci-fi (to make sure they were at least in principle interested in a male-dominated genre) and copy-pasted everything in their profile into gemini with the following prompt:
Looking at alphabetically the first profiles--
65%5%Primarily Female-Skewing 60% – 65%
Gender-Balanced / Equal Appeal 30% – 35%
Primarily Male-Skewing 5% – 10%
Equally Popular Across Genders: 56% (9 out of 16 specific fiction requests)
More Popular with Female Readers:
38% (6 out of 16 specific fiction requests)6% (1 out of 16 specific fiction requests)More Popular with Male Readers:
(Feel free to try and replicate my results with other AI or just read through the profiles yourself-- I'm sure the percentages won't agree exactly, but I think the ratios between female/male appeal will be similar.)
I think these results are pretty clear: the people in charge of finding publishers new books are mostly women, and as a reasonable consequence mostly interested in women-targeted content. I'm not proposing that there's any secret conspiracy to suppress men's voices... but conspiracy isn't necessary to prevent men's voices from, in effect, being suppressed. The modern crop of editors and agents simply largely lacks the lived experience required accurately identify literature boys and men find interesting, and similarly lacks a philosophical commitment to identifying and elevating a new generation of agents and editors who will.
So what can we do?
The publishing world won't fix itself. A lack of male-oriented books means a lack of male readers means a lack of sales means a lack of male-oriented books. Similarly, a lack of male reader means a lack of male writers and editors means a lack of male-oriented books means a lack of male readers. And at least speaking personally, I'm against DEI in general and for men in particular. But where does that leave us?
With slop.
No, seriously. If you feel like you're a guy, and you don't read enough, stop forcing yourself to read highbrow literature or books like you feel you should read, and track down some lowbrow junkfood. I suggest /r/Romance_For_Men , /r/HFY , /r/ProgressionFantasy , or anything on the royalroad front page. If you're a parent of one or more boys, point them toward the pig food dispenser. And I need to clarify that I am not being hyperbolic here. Just like babies have to eat mashed-up food before they can chew through steaks, young men need a regular diet of sophomoric fantasies before they're ready for Asimov or Murakami. Yes, there's a certain risk that the Heinlens and Ayn Rands of the world will feed them masculinist fantasies incompatible with the feminist-egalitarian view of the world you might prefer to instill... but hey, at least that's better than whatever the TikTok algorithm would have done to them.
And then...
Pay for the slop. Talk about the slop. Write your own slop, just for fun. We live in the internet age-- a problem created by gatekeepers can be solved by realizing that mass mediate makes even the tallest walls a short fence that you can simply hop over, and encourage others to do the same. Online-first publishers like Aethon are already in the process of bringing out the proverbial literary wrecking ball-- all they need is some momentum.
*necessary coda-- I haven't managed to get published because my book simply isn't good enough. I know what my problems are and they're largely orthogonal to this rant.
edit: my post just got removed from /r/books again! And this time I removed all references/use of llms and links, which is what the moderator told me got me removed last time. Now I am suspecting a conspiracy.
I agree with Opt-out here. It's easy to point fingers at woke or DEI, but I think the cause is really just prosaic capitalism. Acknowledging I'm in a filter bubble, plenty of men in my orbit read; they just don't do it in a way that makes money for traditional industry.
They read Substacks, or they read Royalroad/web serials/fanfiction, or they "read" manga/indie narrative video games/visual novels, or they pirate all of their literature and the classics from Libgen and Anna's Archive. It's much easier than it's ever been to self-publish or release your work online without going via Big Publisher.
The difference is simply that female writers are disproportionately interested in the prestige of going via traditional Big Publisher, and female readers actually spend money with publishers and bookstores, driven by BookTok or whatever, and hence those industries move increasingly towards catering to the female userbases that actually make them money.
Trying to make men read in the same way that women like to read seems to me much like trying to make sports gambling appealing to women; perhaps in the interest of the industries trying to increase their profits, but honestly a waste of time for society at a whole to try and fit a square peg into a round hole.
No, it's not. We saw this during Floyd; woke is perfectly willing to leave money on the table (by canceling things catering to their enemies -- e.g. [I]Cops[/I] or [I]Roseanne[/I]) if they can prevent anyone else from picking it up. Capitalism or consumer preferences or whatever are then used as an excuse for this
As a response to @Ioper and @Primaprimaprima as well:
If you define woke and DEI as "women having increased economic power relative to men" in such a way that it applies globally across East Asia and the global south then ok sure, but I don't think that's a particularly useful definition.
The decline of traditional publishing in favor of online entertainment is pretty clearly globalized; the phenomenon of men retreating to online and non-traditional reading (e.g the narou / qidian scenes, basically web serials for Japan/China) and of course video games and the myriad of digital pleasures, while only women continue to read traditionally published books, is a fully globalized phenomenon, not just contained to Anglo societies.
It seems fairly clear to me that this is a phenomenon driven by women gaining more economic power relative to men across the entire world, and revealed preferences given the general availability of internet and smartphones. If you want to call this woke or DEI then sure I guess, but I don't think saying that China or Pakistan is woke is a particularly useful definition.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you can call Floyd's death the trigger but not the cause, because TV programming has been willing to purge things that red tribe likes at least since the 1970s.
And that's still ideology, not "capitalism".
Yes, but if it's been documented as happening since the 1970s even on Wikipedia, ideology over raw capitalism has been a thing for quite some time.
The march through the institutions has been going on a LONG time, yes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Capitalism and DEI are inseparable. Culture and politics and economics are unified as one.
If women have greater purchasing power due to a confluence of social factors (getting railroaded into higher paying and more prestigious positions due to DEI initiatives, having more disposable income due to delaying childbirth, etc), then the invisible and perfectly just hand of the free market will just so happen to start catering to women's preferences more.
I don't want to hear about capitalism in a system that actively hunts you for not having enough preferred minorities
It's been an incredible win convincing people that left-wing social engineering, both successful and deeply unsuccessful, is just "capitalism"*
* When it unequivocally fails I believe it's called "late stage capitalism", to distinguish.
I think we're partially making the same point. Regardless of how you want to frame it, we don't live in a pure free market, so defending X or Y or Z by saying "that's just the free market doing its thing" is frequently disingenuous.
I would extend it however and claim that there's no such thing as a "pure free market" even in principle. Even if we can imagine a complete absence of government interference, private individuals could still collude and engage in social engineering; to the extent that they don't, it's because there are cultural prohibitions against doing so. And if we were to make such social engineering formally illegal, then that would simply be government interference in the market. You're always going to have some sort of culture, and it's going to influence your economics; you can't escape to a pure realm of abstract rational agents untainted by culture and politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would believe it was it not for the fact that it is still happening even in male dominant subgenres like sci-fi and to some extent fantasy. Although there is significant part of female readers there (around 40%), the domination is almost complete and you can hardly find something for men and boys. There are some holdouts like Warhammer 40k that still hold 80%+ of male readership, but at this point the clock is ticking.
The point being that male readers are there, but they are not catered to. That is why they move over to other stuff. The situation is similar to what happened to superhero genre or comics, which also have majority male readership but that is increasingly catering to female readers. So men and boys react by going over to anime such as Berserk or Chainsaw man and not whatever gay/feminist slop is produced now in mainstream DC and Marvel comics.
The same goes for literature for boys. There is no replacement for old Cowboy pulp fiction or various adventure books or genre like The Three Investigators, where male/boy heroes only interaction with women is to get sandwich from them. Modern young adult writing is at best Harry Potter clone, where there has to be some know-it-all nagger like Hermione Granger or some female professor hero. The old style of literature of 100% male space is completely gone from modern publishing and especially Young Adult publishing, which became utter gay/feminist slop with mandatory diversity quotas for characters like in Hollywood.
To be fair to Rowling, Hermione being an obnoxious girlboss is mostly a product of the films. Book Hermione is written as book smart, but also as incapable of dealing with high pressure situations, dogmatic and uncreative in solving problems, and a clueless activist who prioritizes her own sense of moral outrage over the people she's ostensibly trying to help. She's constantly getting up-staged by her slacker male friends in every arena outside of pure academics (and even there, Harry mogs her in Defense Against the Dark Arts, clearly the most important and practical subject, and the only one he really cares about doing well in).
And remember, the hero of the story is an aristocratic white man jock who solves all his problems with violence and blind rebellion against authority, who faces his own death with manly courage and ends the story by marrying his best friend's hot younger sister and raising a big family.
Between that and a cast of secondary villains that includes a catty and deceitful female journalist (Rita Skeeter), the ultimate toxically feminine HR lady (Umbridge), and really the wizarding world's entire bureaucratic state (capitalist free enterprise, as exemplified by the Weasley twins, receives an almost exclusively glowing treatment, by contrast), Harry Potter is actually pretty based.
This is just the British hatred of the tabloids (who've given people across the spectrum reason to loathe them). It's not really a partisan or based opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
Don't forget that the whole school is open-carry and it's mostly the bad guys are in favor of "Common Sense Wand Control".
I wrote about it at length before, but it's interesting that Rowling wrote a fictional universe that made sense to her, a liberated late-boomer/early gen X feminist, and it ended up enshrining values that are diametrically opposed to her stated world view.
It's as if writing a universe from scratch requires thinking about the values in it from first principles, and that this can lead you to very different conclusions than those you would get if you just stuck to the values that were imprinted on you by your environment.
It's very British and difficult to understand outside of that context. JK Rowling, like many of her generation, "knew her place", and wanted to look up to her social betters - that is, to have "betters" actually worth looking up to. So, the high drama is replacing the unworthy aristocrats with worthy ones, the long-lost prince returning to high society and mogging the bureaucrats. Ron and Hermione are the good servants of the prince, the stolid man (it's not a coincidence that Ron is red-headed and has a big family, that's saying he's the wizard equivalent of a Celtic Catholic) and the brainy woman, who represents the fantasy of a nerdy girl wishing she had a worthy man to serve, with the Platonic nature of the friendship making the service more pure. It goes back to to the middle ages - think about Robin Hood's relationship to the Good King Richard and the Bad Usurper John.
More options
Context Copy link
Or her stated worldview just isn't as radical as younger wokes, which is one of the reasons she got herself into a lot of trouble.
She just didn't write in the hyper-doctrinaire way people do today. This is a woke more correct situation since they pointed out that JKR is the moderate white: for things like equality but not for revolution. Hermione is shown to be silly, but the end result of that entire SPEW episode is that house-elves being paid instead of indentured servants becomes a policy supported and instituted by Dumbledore, who is also pro-magical creature rights, just not an obnoxious child about it.
IIRC, that wasn't the result of the SPEW episode; Dumbledore had already been paying Dobby (and presumably would have been willing to pay the rest if they'd actually wanted to be paid) before Hermione even learned about Hogwarts having house-elves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, Hermione is not such a girboss in books - although that is arguably a little bit more grating to be honest at least in the beginning. However she shows quite a lot of growth, by the end of the series she is a monster who can cast every spell silently, she can best deatheaters in duels under high-pressure situation, she is genius in potions and transfigurations that she uses constantly to great effect etc. Harry on the other hand remains stagnant, from spellcraft he is one-trick pony using expeliarmus and patronus. Other than that he just utilizes pure gimmicks such as hic connection to Voldemort and psychic visions or pulling Gryffindor sword literally out of the hat just because. He is the series version of McGuffin, he is imbued asset managed and operated by Hermione according to Dumbledore's strategy. It is Hermione who does the heavy lifting such as actually researching on how to destroy horcruxes or painstaking training in spellcasting.
She's Basil Exposition, there to conduct the background research and dripfeed the reader useful information that's too tedious for the protagonist to bother with. She provides Harry with some of his cool gadgets. Harry is the one putting his body on the line. Harry is the one who has to systematically lose his parent figures in the process of growing into the leader his people need him to be. Harry is the one who figures out the last pieces of puzzles at the last second when it really counts, and then actually defeats the bad guy.
Yes, Hermione is a valuable asset and a character who grows throughout the course of the story. She is a technically more proficient magic practitioner than Harry is, and uses this to save him on numerous occasions. She is more organized and more responsible, as girls tend to be at that age.
But Harry isn't just some buffoon protected by main character energy. Set his special chosen one status aside for a second. He may not be a star student, but the books are pretty explicit that this is because he prioritizes the battle against Voldemort over academics. Yes, sometimes he's just slacking off with Ron instead of studying, but more often than not, he struggles because he spends his nights snooping around the castle and is constantly battling extra work and detention as a result of this (and vindictive teachers actively out to harass him). In the areas he is able/willing to apply himself, he consistently outshines Hermione. Harry is also much more well-rounded than Hermione (in the model of the classic English gentleman. Being a broadly successful dilletant is good; being a single-minded striver is gauche). He's exceptionally brave, loyal, and strong-willed in the face of institutional opposition. What he lacks in technical acumen, he more than makes up for in grit, determination, and leadership.
Hermione is a very capable (though flawed) character, but she's not heroic in the same way Harry is.
This is just matter of perspective. In practice, it is Harry who is Basil Exposition for Hermione, especially given the gimmicky nature of how he receives his knowledge. If the story was written from Hermione's perspective, it would be much more interesting. She is out there in the library researching Nicolas Flamel, creating plans and plots only for Harry to casually drop stuff like randomly waking up screaming, speaking to snakes, and seeing visions of Voldemort torturing people - only to obsess about quidditch the next day as if nothing happens, leaving all the work to main protagonist Hermione.
The story would shift toward Hermione managing this Harry moron, who refuses to communicate (e.g. when he refused to talk to Hermione about seeing Grim in Prisoner of Azkaban), who endlessly whines about how bad he has it and, who has some inferiority complex trying to hard to be a hero only to be rescued like damsel in distress by Hermione. You would get your standard YA story where the main protagonist manages his team of moronic sidekicks who more than villains are there to foil his plans. Just think about all the time when Harry talking to Hermione would solve the plot in couple of days instead of whole year.
No, he does not prioritize that. Like I said before, he wallows in his trauma and refuses to communicate. He constantly switches priorities to stupid stuff like quidditch instead of the issue at hand or even communicating with the group. Other than Hermione, it is his chosen plot armor is his main quality.
He never is more well rounded. He is myopic, lack any planning or true talent except of dumb luck. And it even gets worse as Hermione shores up her academic/theoretic leanings by raw experience. If anything, managing Harry in earlier yeas is her training wheels - much as in some story the main hero takes care of his younger sibling or ailing mother.
Also Hermione is much better leader and even possesses better character. Just compare these two scenes: Harry is tortured in Goblet of Fire and he decides to stand and face Voldemort by pure grit and defiance. He casts his stupid expeliarmus - there is nothing else in his bag of tricks - and the nature of predcicament makes it so that he resists Voldemorts curse by pure cosmic coincidence. Second scene: Harry is threatened by crucio torture in Umbridge office. Harrys instinct is stubborn denial. However Hermione keeps her cool, pretends to fold, invents complex story about Dumbledore's secret weapon in the forest thus leading Umbridge into a trap. This was the umpteenth time where Hermione bailed out that moron from deadly situation so that the Voldemort could actually be defeated.
Hermione is as brave as Harry, but she goes about it more intelligently. She is proactive, strategic, she can rely on backup plans. In terms of leadership she is communicative, competent, mature, she has high moral integrity and by the end of the book she is very versatile monster of a witch, true enlightened gentlewoman. Harry is isolated self pitying whiner, inept, prone to distractions like quidditch. His redeeming qualities are his stubbornness - the other side of the coin of introversion and refusal to communicate. He is for sure brave, even stupidly so and his main redeeming qualities are plot armor in form of being the chosen one.
If I wanted to select who would be my colleague or coworker or even friend or role model after the whole ordeal, I would take Hermione over Harry every time.
I'm sorry to join the "reading QCs a month later" pile-on, but I have to ask: are you sure this is true?
I've always thought of it as a bit of genius for Rowling to make Hermione a side character. From a Watsonian perspective Hermione is halfway to being a Mary Sue, but that turns out to be fine, because she doesn't fit the most important part of the Doylist definition of a Mary Sue: she's not Our Main Character. We don't live in her head, we spend a bunch of time away from her, and we don't even meet her until several chapters into the first book, so we don't ever begin to relate to her as a Wish Fulfillment stand-in. She can face a threat capable of incapacitating her for half a book without readers missing the climax. She can be a Double Witch with extra-secret time-turner powers or be the focus of a love triangle with a celebrity athlete, without those things feeling like just a Twilight-style annoying paean to how great Our Protagonist is, because we see those things from the outside. She doesn't need to break characterization and seize the Idiot Ball to get into interesting conflicts, because we get emotionally invested enough into Harry that we don't get too annoyed when he's idiot enough for the both of them. (which he kind of has to be; since he fits a ton of other Mary Sue traits, he'd get pretty annoying too if he wasn't regularly failing and getting smacked around)
I agree that the structure of the book is Harry centered. We only have access to his internal monologue and his perspective and we do not have access to Hermione. But there is a long tradition of such a story, even in English literature: the Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson dynamics.
In fact it fits quite well. Potter similarly to Watson is the brave one, somebody who acts, who goes wand in hand to brave dangers and who is center of the perspective and action. Holmes similarly to Hermione is the hidden genius who comes and goes with solutions, he is the central figure who solves thing behind the scenes and which are to be often utilized by Watson. Crucially, not having access to Holmes internal monologue makes him more of a mysterious figure, which makes him less of a Mary Sue. And he is undisputed main character of the story.
In Harry Potter it is of course not as explicit as Watson's subservience and worship of Holmes. Plus Hermione is only one of many such characters, where Holmes is the ensemble of the system: Hermione, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Moody, Order of Phoenix etc. who do the heavy lifting behind the scenes: plotting, planning, protecting, building structures which Potter then visits as a curated explorer exactly how Watson has his own adventures that were sanitized by Holmes genius.
In the end I do not "identify" with Potter. He is not a leader, or a hero. He is brave and he possesses good qualities, but his victories are result of luck and/or insane work of much more important people behind the scenes. If anything, Hermione is the one who really is the hero as she shares enough of the "view time" from the story perspective with constant input into various plans. That would be my argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you read Leaders of Men? I think it gestures at some of what you're eliding as "gimmicks".
I did right now, and as far as I understand this is what counts?
So leadership is some je ne sais quoi, ability to get results via mysterious means? I think it can work from the outside, but it does not work in literature where you have access to internal monologue of main leader and his underlings. I actually think that people really underestimate how moronic Harry Potter was and how he was managed by everybody else. Here is one passage of angry Potter being called to professor McGonagall office after he had altercation with Umbridge:
Calm down, have a biscuit and let me tell you what to do right now before I lose my patience with you. A classical treatment of ancient hero in sagas of old, right? Achilles was known for his ability to take shit from bureaucrats like that, sit down and sip his tea waiting to be berated about how awful he is.
At best, Harry was treated as a loose cannonball, a moron to be managed by everybody: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Hermione and the whole Order of Phoenix. Even Draco Malfoy. Otherwise he would fall flat on his head and die instantly. Potter is no backroom manager moving chess pieces or anything like that. At best, he is a brute field player who has to be managed by the likes of Granger or McGonagall, who are Willie Randolphs of the story.
Moreover Potter does not even work as a traditional reckless hero like Beowulf or Achilles. He is literal subversion. He lacks any agency in achieving Kleos/Glory, all his victories are result of pure luck, his blood chemistry through his mother or through administrative support of whole organization with private armies. He is not an individual hero like Beowulf who gets angry, sails across a sea to tear arms of Grendel by his bare hands. He is no Conan the Barbarian who stands proud in defiance of gods, wizards and the world with his honor, strength and good steel in his hand. Neither is he Odysseus using his guile and cunning, or Batman devising strategies, plans and gadgets to put him on even playing field with monstrous villains of his world - if there is any such hero in that story it is Hermione. Potter is damsel in distress, a MacGuffin to be protected by multi-billion operation, the best wizard who ever lived and literal Order.
He is not a leader. If that was the case, any moronic lottery winner who is managed by his mom would be voted as a president of the country. That is why Potter is no hero for boys and men. He is subversion of heroic archetype and no sophism and mythical leadership je ne sais quoi will save that fact.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
fellas, is it gay when a woman speaks in a piece of fiction
Ok, I mean, I get the desire for gritty warband-society fiction, but having zero women is not a natural or optimal state of most societies. The Harry Potter example is strange - I have never seen a single complaint that it has too many female characters for the male readership's taste, until now, I suppose. And superhero comics? Really? You mean those superhero comics that famously don't have women acting with agency on par with men, ever?
It's not just society warband gridmark fiction. It is any fiction, take Three Investigators that was famous genre during my time as young adult in 80ies and 90ies. The same with old Western books by Karl May such as Old Surehand or Czech version of it in form of books by Jaroslav Foglar, huge proponent of Boy Scouts and who created incredible world where boys had their own culture and hidden wars in Prague.
Really? You never read any analysis of how Hermione Granger is the true hero? I took it for granted that Harry Potter is just a lucky, brave but ultimately passive and reactive "chosen one for no reason" moron. The only thing that he really owns is his quidditch success, that is why he was such a good target for Eliezers fanfiction remake. Ron is comedic relief with loyalty as his best attribute. Hermione Granger is the ultimate hero of the story, she is the brain of the whole operation, she is proactive one who prepares for everything, who is there to get the group out of trouble and often is the only one capable to execute due to her diligence and knowledge of spells. She is basically managing the other two morons. Additionally such a group is hardly something normative, I cannot imagine any such group dynamics developing anywhere during my childhood.
These were nowhere near as popular especially compared to S-tier heroes like Spiderman, Superman or Batman, in fact most of the female led comics were on brink of cancelation in 1970s and 1980s with one exception of Wonder Woman. But I will give it to you as the same thing is happening with anime Tsundere phenomenon, so I guess nerds universally are attracted to sassy combative female characters who are there as a prize to be won if hero simps enough and takes the abuse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why is this only happening in the west though? And why only the last 20 years or so?
I'm more inclined to believe that something is rotten specifically in western publishing.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not actually blaming Woke, for the record-- that's why I put that whole spiel about this NOT being a conspiracy. But I am convinced this is very much a supply issue, not a demand issue-- I stopped pirating music when spotify got easy and good enough to be a better deal... (well in point of fact I stopped when grooveshark got DMCA'd, but didn't feel the need to find an alternative given that spotify was just *there)-- and I'll stop pirating books when...
Okay, maybe you have a tiny point. TBH the cause is probably at least somewhat bidirectional. But while I acknowledge that I'm getting into bravery debate here... I feel like the impact of the pressures on men are dramatically underestimated compared to the impact of the pressures by men, when it comes to the publishing industry. (And maybe also in general but that is a way larger discussion that I have the time to have right now) As a baseline estimate, since we see much more comparable reading rates for younger vs older children...
ref-- https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/feb/22/teenage-boys-reading-books-research?CMP=share_btn_url
1.4x vs 1.8x
I would guess that at least half of those boys are "lost" because of an insufficient supply of books. If the proportion at age 14-16 was 1.6x, we would see ~11% of boys reading. That doesn't sound like much, but that's 10% more male readers! And we should expect that this effect is actually cumulative given decreased rates of reading with age. Given the relationship between reading ability, educational attainment, and professional success, this difference in reading ability likely has massive downstream effects on the total number of men making it through to elite positions. Correcting that deficit is the opposite of a "waste of time." We could have-- at minimum, at an estimate-- a minimum of 10% more male doctors, lawyers, and engineers just by making sure more male-oriented books are published and promoted. Even ignoring the negative effects of the disparity between male and female achievement, the absolute effects of so many missing elites is likely to be significant and negative.
(Unless you believe AI will solve everything, but that's a fully general argument for not caring about anything.)
Sorry, but for middle-grade and young-adult boys, this supply-side argument just isn't empirically true.
Scholastic is a behemoth juvenile-lit publisher who sends their direct-marketing book fliers home with schoolkids and hosts annual book fairs at elementary and middle schools all over the USA. Here is their catalog for ages 13+. Skim it and you'll see whole rafts of titles obviously trying to catch the interest of teen boys:
Maybe it's not your personal ideal Naruto/ MLP/ skills-progression/ harem-porn cocktail, but at this level there's no shortage of publishing executives asking what boys like (fighting, adventure, videogames, skills, gore, comedy) and desperately trying to give it to them. Meanwhile, based on what I see around me, the tween boys are off binging MrBeast brainrot and disturbing TikTok AI porn, have minimal attention spans, and will not be enticed to pick up a book by any number of explosions on the cover.
Your argument is essentially that since you saw a panda in a zoo, pandas must not actually be endangered. "Boy books exist" does not disprove "there are fewer boy books." In particular, the paucity of male editors, agents, bookstore owners, and librarians mean that even the boy books that do get selected tend to be selected for acquisition or display get selected by people with a less discerning taste for what makes books interesting to boys. It's like the difference between the kind of comic book a grandma would buy for a little boy as opposed to the kind of comic book that little boy would buy for himself. Brainrot, poor attention spans, and tiktok thirst traps also afflict girls-- but the relatively higher quantity and quality of books available to them make them more likely to read anyway.
Whoah, that's sounding awfully like an argument for... representation? I'll admit, finding a full-throated defense of 50:50 gender quotas and #ownvoices on the was not on my Motte bingo card for the day. Nice that this place can still surprise me.
It unironically and unabashedly is (though unfortunately I don't think your downvoters recognized that.) Being represented in works of media is an important factor in making groups of people interested in said media, especially when the people in those groups do have some deep identification with the group identity. Wokism misunderstands representation as meaning that every group (excluding straight white cis and/or males) should be represented in every work, and that's a critical error. Similarly, there's also a lot of ignorance about what's actually being represented, and how important different kinds of representation are to different groups, but the idea isn't totally wrong at its core.
Well, hey, cool! Kudos on your self-awareness, it's an interesting set of views.
I'm curious how a right-leaning identitarian/ equity-and-inclusion focus squares itself with some of the standard critiques from the right, though. For example, you say:
But we should be clear that this isn't something left-identitarians believe for its own sake. Rather, it follows inevitably when you first accept the premise that it's right and natural for a person to reject otherwise-valuable activities (reading a book, taking a job, going to college) because of their subjective feelings of exclusion or lack-of-belonging when they feel unrepresented among too many non-identity-affiliates. An institution achieves perfect representation along one axis, then someone pipes up and says they feel the work doesn't speak to their group's concerns, so you put some of that group in, and before you know it, you have "every group represented in every work."
But as I understand it, you also endorse that premise? You're arguing it's understandable when boys don't read, and that this is not their fault, but rather is the fault of too much female-ness/ not enough vapid-big-titty-schoolgirls in books- so it's the job of publishers to remove this female-ness, and NOT the job of intelligent boys to find other axes besides gender/sexual desire along which to connect with literature. This is in keeping with the standard identitarian view that fiction is a mirror, not a window- that is, we read books to flatter our feelings and affirm our existing worldviews, not to better understand other people or learn about different spheres of human experience.
But also, you actually seem to be endorsing a far stronger version of this premise than most left-identitarians in publishing would. They might agree that fiction-as-mirror means that readers deserve a relatable own-identity-aligned character or two in most works to keep them engaged, plus some books in the catalog with own-identity-aligned protagonists, plus preference for the authors who write identity-group-X to also be from identity-group-X ("own voices"). But when I listed many books in the Scholastic catalog that satisfied these exact criteria for your identity group, being male-authored, deliberately tuned to male-only thematic interests, and featuring not just male protagonists but also mostly-to-all-male secondary characters, you argued that this is still not enough for equity and inclusion, because although men wrote this for men, about male interests, and many Scholastic execs are also men, there were presumably women in the pipeline somewhere ("chosen by grandma"), which makes it understandable that boys wouldn't want to read those books and shouldn't be expected to.
You can see how that would get pretty extreme if impartially applied across identity groups, right? Your "grandma" claim says that for your group to engage, there should be be no critical mass of non-co-idents anywhere in the mainstream publishing pipeline, primarily because non-co-idents don't really understand your identity group's experience, secondarily because they might block content that your identity group enjoys because it comfortingly runs down other identity groups as inherently stupid, inferior and exploitation-worthy.
Your preferred identity axis is biological sex, but that's based on your own feelings: someone else might feel more attuned to ethnicity, immigrant status, gender-nonconformity, class, disability, religion, etc. Arguing from your very high standards for equity and inclusion, how would you operationalize this in fairness across all those identity categories, for which people feel the same deep feelings of interest/disinterest and acceptance/rejection that you feel around your male sex? Again, you've argued not just that there should be some representation of your identity in authors/ characters/ protagonists, but that fiction is disqualified by any involvement of your enemy identity group(s), and indeed must feature substantial content demeaning them in order to catch your interest. That's a pretty tall order if you're applying it evenly across groups.
In broader terms, though, I'm also curious: if we're going with the identitarian "fiction= mirror" and the main purpose of reading really is to stroke our ego, bathe us in wish-fulfillment fantasies of power, accomplishment and sexual desirability, demean our enemies and validate our worldviews, all in the easy familiar language of our Present Moment - then what do you see as the prosocial value in reading? You seem to think it's a loss to society if some group chooses not to read, but also it sounds like you want books to leave us just as they found us, except maybe a bit more self-centered. So why do you care?
So I think you're overapplying your own understanding of why leftists want representation because I was referring less to all the academic concepts of why representation is good/useful and more to what I understood to be the most defensible version of the argument. That being, narrowly, that people re more likely to enjoy and therefore engage with works of media where they can see aspects of themselves represented.
(this is my bad for not being more specific, sorry.)
And to be clear, I'm also not applying this concept of representation normatively. I'm not saying that representation is good or bad, I'm neither claiming nor disclaiming a moral right to reject a book series based on its lack of big-titty schoolgirls. I am making a descriptive assessment that there is a lack of representation for males (1) within newly-released novels and (2) relative to the amount of space allocated for male-targeted books on store shelves. I furthermore diagnose the cause of that lack of representation as being due to the lack of representation of males (3) within the publishing industry. I do make a normative assessment about whether male literacy/novel-reading is a good thing, and to the degree that I believe it is a good thing I propose measures to remedy a lack of it by addressing (1) and (3). But you should understand those recommendations as instrumental measures, not moral imperatives. So with reference to your question:
To the degree that we can benefit as a society by encouraging literacy in specific identity categories, we should recommend interventions to promote literacy... based on the relative cost of the intervention compared against the expected benefit. I think the interventions I propose to start making up the gap between male and female literacy should be fairly cheap and affect a large proportion of the population. I think, on the other hand, forcing every single movie to include mixed-race professional sheep wool stylists would have a cost out of proportion to its benefits.
And with reference to--
This is a clear strawman of my position. I think reading can, does, and should stroke egoes and fantasies... not an an terminal goal, but as an instrumental step towards getting them to read better books that help them grow as people. (And also as a way to displace even more unhealthy, ego-stroking forms of media consumption.) Refer to my original post:
Also, elsewhere I make the argument that reading anything increases reading comprehension skills, which are linked to educational and professional attainment and therefore something we want to positively promote... even if the means to do so have unsavory light novel titles about horny sisters and taking gigarevenge for small slights.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And before someone argues "sure, but all those boys' books are stupid, formulaic and terrible," well, the girls' books very much are, too.
Meanwhile, I miss when people of either sex read books for some reason other than pure embarrassing wish-fulfillment, jack-off material, or TV fandom. And when every book didn't need to have pictures.
The girls' books seem stupid, formulaic, and terrible in a way that appeals to girls' interests, in a way that boys' books aren't. That's the interesting question here, why book publishers, despite their monetary incentives, seem immensely terrible at appealing to boys in a way that they aren't when it comes to appealing to girls. Why is it that they're publishing the kinds of stuff directed at boys that they are now and declaring that they've tried and just lack the ability to force boys to read, instead of analyzing whatever underlying assumptions and ideologies that are directing them towards making bad decisions when it comes to publishing books that are stupid, formulaic, and terrible in a way that appeals to boys, like they're successfully doing for girls now?
Girls' reading has dropped off dramatically, too; boys just had a shorter distance to fall. I know "F@#$g girlbosses" are the preferred explanation for many ills hereabouts, but for anyone who's hung out with elementary schoolers recently, it's so obviously the screens in this case that I don't think Ockham's razor supports any more elaborate explanation.
Citation needed, so here's a 2025 study that captures some of the key gender differences: in kids 0-8, 59% of girls read or were read to daily vs. 50% of boys, but for both populations the figure is falling steadily over time.
By contrast, parental reports of screen use showed boys spent 25% more daily time on screens than girls. They spent 50% more time gaming (especially console gaming), as well as substantially more time watching online videos.
Table 10 in that study gives useful insights into what would appeal to boys. It shows that boys and girls have similar YouTube viewing patterns, except for the categories of streaming videogame commentary and prank videos, both of which little boys spend far more daily time consuming. This is by parental report, so likely a large underestimate given how often kids (and boys especially!) sneak YouTube time on phones or school computers without their parents' knowledge.
Have you ever seen any of those brainrot prank videos that little boys gravitate toward, on channels like Brent Rivera's? I was subjected to some secondhand, recently, as I glanced over the shoulder of a ~9-year-old little boy who binge-watched for three straight hours on his ipad while his dad was emailing. (This was in travel circumstances where once kids might have turned to a book.) The videos are aggressively, mind-numbingly high-intensity, emotive and anti-thought. Jump cuts multiple times per second! Bright colors and Punch-and-Judy-level plots! Constant threat and edgy cruelty, telegraphed by actors who grimaced and mugged cartoonishly through their roles, with constant fantasy slapstick to confuse and perplex. Bonus vague undercurrents of disturbing sexuality (Brent apparently feels up his sister a bunch) to seamlessly transition the kids to phone porn when they hit 10 or 11.
I felt trippy and mentally fried after about 5 minutes of that stuff. I can't imagine what it would do to a young person's brain to spend hours per day at that level of passive stimulation during sensitive developmental windows from toddlerhood onward. Verbal ability also builds on itself, so kids who read just a bit less will fall farther behind in reading comprehension and stamina with each passing year.
If you honestly think it's those publishing Karens' fault that this boy didn't read, I'd be curious to hear exactly what print stories you think would compare favorably in attention-grabbing qualities to Brent Rivera or Five Nights at Freddy's. I suspect the Karens would love to know, as well.
Hard to say, but behavior by the "Karens" in other fictional media industries such as film, TV, and video games suggests that these Karens would prefer not to find out, even if it means paying a hefty financial penalty.
I'd say that a good start might be trying to appeal to boys by figuring out what appeals to them in literature by e.g. looking where there is a higher proportion of boys reading, such as, e.g. comic books (the actually successful ones from yesteryear) or visual novels or even light novels, and see what those have in common. I think one core part that would likely help is to make sure that the fiction specifically flouts ideals, concepts, principles, and such, of whatever name we're putting on the cluster of ideologies around feminism today. A lot of the male-successful VNs and LNs seem to have a significant wish-fulfillment portion, which, to young men, would certainly require things that would make the typical standard-issue liberal feminist at least cringe, if not faint; as such, a publisher aiming to appeal to young male readers ought to at least consider, if not prioritize, making literature that specifically offends their editors.
I also suspect that nerdy scifi or tech-oriented military thrillers like the stuff by Crichton and Clancy of yesteryear could find a decent male audience, though, like all literature, it's likely far less popular in 2026 than 1996. And it seems vanishingly unlikely that someone who's not a male autist or autist-adjacent could or would want to write a good book like that; as such, if the publishers made sure not to discriminate against males and possibly even sought out autists or autist-adjacents, with bonus points if their writings seemed to condone ideologies that would make their median editor ragequit and call for a boycott of the publisher, then that might also be a good step.
Yes, as I said, I'm aware that's the one-size-fits-all prescription hereabouts. Similarly, I bet the tankies think flouting capitalism would solve the reading crisis and the NIMBYs think stricter zoning couldn't hurt. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
But the claim that little Jaden with the slack jaw and glazed eyes would totally click away from his sixtieth Dhar Mann video and dive into thick books if only the mean editor ladies... what, put more vapid big-titty schoolgirls in there? I think you're going to need a proposed mechanism for that. The internet is already chockablock with vapid big-titty schoolgirls, many of whom you can apparently watch getting excitingly choked and butt-fucked while their big titties bounce around in crystal-clear high-def. What's the competing attraction of a paragraph of tepid prose description that forces you to exhaustingly imagine the titties yourself based on a lot of words whose meanings you don't know?
As you pointed out, there's lots of media out there that's already consumed enthusiastically by boys and men. Versus traditional prose novels, all of those other media genres are notable for dispensing much higher levels of stimulation while making much lighter demands on abstract thinking, verbal reasoning, long-term focus and complex emotional processing. If a group, left to itself, preferentially consumes media that's mostly pictures with few words, media that features fast-moving objects, physical conflicts, bright colors and flashing lights, media with cartoonish characters based on familiar TV/film/game IP and predictable wish-fulfillment plots, media with exaggerated visual depictions of receptive sexual targets, then that's what I'd call an extremely obvious revealed preference for not prose literary fiction. Which is fine, but again, what's your model for "just mix in a little cartoony comic-book fanservice porn and maybe they'll rush back to novels"? Why would they be likelier to take the medicine with a spoonful of sugar, when they can already just eat the sugar straight?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IMO there's plenty of supply if you know where to look, frankly way more supply that any human could engage with in a thousand lifetimes, between the classics, modern web fiction, and non-traditional mediums (narrative indie games, graphic novels, visual novels etc). If the claim is more narrow that there's a supply issue within modern traditional publishing then I agree, but it seems like neither male producers nor male consumers as a whole are particularly interested in filling the gap, so it seems like a bit of a dead end. I'm not convinced that specifically lack of modern traditionally published books is why boys are reading less, when there's so much else available to read for those interested.
Those are some interesting stats, but I'm not convinced that less boys reading is causal to reduced male educational / professional success (although it does seem likely that there are other factors of modernity causal of both less reading and less success).
The era where every upper-middle class man received a traditional liberal arts education and was conversant in the classics is decades past; nowadays your doctor's favorite movie is the Avengers and your lawyer plays Fifa in the one hour free he has every week to unwind. The pressures behind competitive careers nowadays don't really align with developing literary taste; I've had much more interesting intellectual conversations with underemployed third-world internet anons compared to the vast majority of the magnet school strivers that I went to school with. I'm not convinced that more reading would lead to more men in elite positions at all.
The operative words in your post are
That is a very high barrier to entry, and one I think you are inches away from recognizing given your later comments about marvel doctors and fifa lawyers. Men have to take an active and concerted effort to find fiction written for them, much less high quality fiction. Goodreads has an abysmally shit book recommendation system and its top-lists are all voted on overwhelmingly by women. Fanfiction sites are full up on sludge written by middle schoolers and without deep knowledge of which fandoms to read and what tags to look for you will find yourself running into works that may initially seem compelling but invariably devolve into fluff/romance/angst slop. Royal road is... royal road.
In the meantime, women have booktok influencers and glistening werewolf abs on every supermarket shelf. Overabundance leads to interest leads to consumption leads to overabundance, in a virtuous cycle.
Yeah that's fair enough, I agree that booktok / romantasy slop is now aggressively marketed to women in a way that reading is no longer marketed to men.
Still, I'm not really convinced this is a problem per se; on an individual level there's plenty of avenues for men to read and write literature if they so desire, and on a societal level would we really be better off if the romantasy equivalent (Dungeon Crawler Carl?) was getting marketed aggressively to men?
For men who already have an established and voracious love of reading, maybe. For young boys, I think, not so much.
When reading books is causative of reading proficiency is causative of educational and professional attainment, absolutely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link