[removed]
[removed]
There’s a real conversation to be had about young boys not reading as much, but I think the headline is unintentionally a bit alarmist. They mostly read these “primary-level books” because those are fun books that are also popular. I’d rather people read for fun in their spare time than to maximize productivity. This kinda feels like one of many ways to say that young men are behaving in ways that don’t *entirely* cater to the future job market. Also, they surveyed the top 10 books read by boys and girls, and they both share 3 books between them. It’s not that girls don’t also like similar books as well. Is it that much worse that young people want to read a coming-of-age comedy graphic novel than a coming-of-age standard young adult novel?
You're completely right. It's not like the top ten list of girls would be filled with books by the likes of Shakespeare or something while boys wouldn't get any further than the dairy of wimpy kid series in comparision. It's also intresting that the source of the article says itself something like "it is very import that our findings support our current knowledge that engagement is important for motivation pupil to read". They don't say something like "it is very important that our findings suggest that girls read more mature books than boys".
It's one of my concerns with the way this whole issue seems to be discussed. There seems to be this assumption that things that girls and women tend to like = good and things that boys and men tend to like = bad. I'm not even certain that people realize they're doing it.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Boys read less than girls and men read less than women. While I think this is worth interrogating, I think a lot of the alarmism around the ‘reading gap’ assumes that this predicts or creates a generalised intelligence gap between men and women. I don’t believe this to be the case, and reading is only really an intellectual pursuit if one is reading more complex, or non-fiction, texts (most readers irrespective of gender are not doing this). Many of the smartest men I know are not readers habitually, but are otherwise excellent engineers and problem solvers. Likewise reading simple fiction is no solid predictor in my experience that one either moves on to more complex or nuanced texts, or that one develops a better critical eye for assessing meaning or quality. Another point on this is that I recall my school library just having very few books that looked interesting to me. When I was a young teen I wanted sword and sorcery, adventure and science fiction. My school had vanishingly few of these, so most of the books I read were ones I bought myself (D&D novels, etc). I think what’s more important than the act of reading itself is ensuring that our young people have opportunities and outlet for critical and intellectual engagements. Some people get very into film, for instance, becoming amateur movie buffs who enjoy critically engaging with cinema. I think that’s as valuable as literary engagement insofar as the benefits to one’s overall intellectual development.
[removed]
I think it's quite important developmentally for children to be able to read well and often even reading fiction widens one's lexicon and has all sorts of knock-on benefits, being able to construct a narrative, empathising and learning of different possible experiences and scenarios, expanding one's imagination etc. There's a big problem with literacy rates in young children right now and one way to strengthen those rates is encouraging children to read more. Here's a few relevant quotes to illustrate the issue.
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress’ (NAEP) testing in 2022, 37% of fourth-graders performed below their basic reading level, representing a stark 14% drop since 1992 and a three-point drop just since 2019, the biggest reduction in scores since the testing began.
Mayes added that literacy helps children expand their worlds, providing new role models, and helping them see the different ways they can live their lives.
Similarly, literacy can help build social connections, in part by helping young people share the stories they know with others. This also can expand their social network by amplifying their ability to deepen and connect with a diversity of people.
Mayes explained three ways that literacy in childhood may improve lifelong health. To start, she said, literacy can promote understanding, including what a young person can do to live a healthier life and become a healthy adult.
Mayes added that literacy helps children expand their worlds, providing new role models, and helping them see the different ways they can live their lives.
But what of the emotional intelligence gap? That's where we as boys and men often play catchup.
While I think this is worth interrogating, I think a lot of the alarmism around the ‘reading gap’ assumes that this predicts or creates a generalised intelligence gap between men and women
I feel like the conversation is usually moreso about academic success than raw intelligence as there is a correlation between kids who read more and doing better in school. Reading is a skill that's super important for academic success so getting more practice is important.
But, I agree. I'm less concerned about the "reading gap" and more concerned with an overall decline in reading. It seems like YA and softcore erotica for Gen Z and Millennial women is sort of holding up the entire industry and IDK if all the kids who aren't reading are replacing them with other creative, intellectually engaging pursuits (especially since we're basically driving the Arts into extinction-or into the exclusive providence of nepo babies- with the lack of funding for them especially within schools).
In my experience, a big problem is that the way schools in the UK treat reading is overly controlling and somewhat infantilising. I felt this way when I was there, and I still feel it now. Everyone was locked into a system whereby you could only read baby books unless you wrote reading reports, and brought the book you were reading into school everyday so that you could do supervised reading with a teacher (if randomly chosen to). In theory, it was a very structured and graduating system. In practice, it was inflexible and unnatural, and it didn't match the boys' rate of ambition or general forgetfulness at all. In practice, it fell completely flat. Boys would forget to bring their books and reports all the time and, instead of accepting it and reshaping the system around that (by, for instance, keeping copies of books at the school), they would just get chastised for it and stay stuck with the baby books. The boys who did remember and really wanted to engage with reading, became disillusioned with the graduating system and lost interest in reading because the system worked too slowly and their ambition completely outpaced it. There were too many tiers with minimal differences between them, and the supervised reading opportunities (chances to graduate to the next tier) were too infrequent. It simply demanded a rigidity and pace that didn't match most of the boys at all. I didn't engage with the system at all as a result. In my final year, my teacher sat me down, gave me a book from the hardest tier they had (several years above our age), and asked me to read a chapter from it. I did It easily, and he moved me instantly up to the top level. If it had been that convenient and sensical the entire time, more boys would have cared about it.
Interesting, in my school they didn't even really bother to track the reading, I remember writing a total of maybe 2-3 reports but that'd be in lesson, and I'd always keep my book in my backpack. I do remember the reading levels, though that was more of a guidance and less of a strict rule. That was also only for a year and then they stopped bothering again. I think this is probably a case-by-case basis, I also did go to an academy and not a maintained school which might affect things also.
[removed]
[removed]
It was the same graduating system at my school, where you went through grades of set books until you reached the end and then you could choose your own. I wasn't massively enjoying the books they provided, but being a competitive little girl I took it as a challenge and blasted through them. It taught me reading focus and made me quite a fast reader and I'm still reading loads today. It also broadened my horizons a bit and got me to read books I wouldn't have usually chosen, but ended up enjoying. Maybe they just needed to give opportunities on demand to graduate to the next tier? Finish the book, quick discussion from a teacher and a supervised read and onto the next book.
[removed]
[removed]
This may be a more recent thing, or a regional thing. I'm mid-thirties and the system was nowhere near as stringent back when I was in school in the late nineties and early 2000s.
I distinctly remember reading YA novels at home (eragon, harry potter, skullduggery pleasant) and still being subject to the indignities of biff chip and kipper and clifford at school by this sort of inflexible system. I'm sure they both gave up eventually while also claiming me as a success of the program.
Am I missing something, or is the Lottie Brooks series pretty similar to Diary of a Wimpy Kid? They look very close from a quick scan. If they are more or less equivalent, then the substantial differences are Good Girl's Guide to Murder and the Heartstopper books - Hunger Games and the early Harry Potter books are both on both lists. I will go to bat for Heartstopper on the grounds that fluffy heartwarming depictions of gay romance are a good thing and we should have more of them, but it's not exactly challenging, mature literature. I don't know much about Good Girl's Guide to Murder. It's labeled YA but that covers a very wide range.
[removed]
I'd never thought I'd say this, but I'm starting to miss the articles about loneliness, the ones that tell us we'd be happier if we got over ourselves and started playing canasta or pinochle. Another article about teenage boys not reading. This one isn't really doing it...for a change, but they usually make reading sound as exciting as eating broccoli, steamed, unseasoned broccoli, and then they wonder why they don't like to read. They never seem to recommend books they might actually like. Clash of Eagles, Gun Metal Gods, Hot Moon, The Hobbit, LotR and I'm sure there are others. Perhaps I'm looking at these numbers wrong, and while it does look like girls are reading more than boys, it doesn't appear to be that big of a margin, reading for pleasure seems to be low across the board, but apparently if a boy isn't reading he's what, watching Andrew Tate videos? I'm not anti reading by any means, in fact I'm trying to read more myself, I'm just not sold on this idea that men and boys reading novels is going to save the world. Assigning morality to hobbies does not necessarily make one want to engage in that hobby. The left drones on about reading the exact same way the right talks about lifting weights, it doesn't make a person want to read a novel or strength train.
It might also be that boys react more strongly to non-fiction or “applied science” adventure stories. So, books like “How it happened: History’s 50 Greatest Military Disasters” or “The Great Escape” will be considered unsuitable material to learn reading skills from. But, then schools adopt “Wuthering Heights” or “Anne of Green Gables” as curriculum and wonder why boys disengage.
\>I’m just not sold on this idea that men and boys reading is going to save the world. Assigning morality to hobbies does not make one want to engage in that hobby. I’m a former English teacher with a background in literacy education. My grandmother was functionally illiterate (she could read basic traffic signs but not restaurant menus, for example). It’s very interesting to me to see reading continuously referred to as a hobby in this thread, because reading is a lot like walking. Yes, some people enjoy walking as a hobby and they’ll put a lot more effort into it than the average person. They might choose to walk for miles and miles, they might buy special equipment to walk more, etc. But having the option to walk more as a hobby doesn’t make moderate walking any less important for the average person, as walking promotes cardiovascular fitness, and maintains muscle and joint health that helps us remain mobile as we age, to name two benefits. It’s recommended we walk 3-4 miles (5-6 kms) a day, but, according to a quick Google search, the average American walks 1.5-2.5 miles a day and half of British adults walk less than a mile a day. As such, we can see the consequences of those choices reflected in each country’s public health data. Reading is not merely a hobby nor is anyone necessarily assigning morality to reading -it’s a life skill. Reading improves memory, expands vocabulary and limits cognitive decline. Even if you don’t enjoy reading as a hobby, it’s how everyone -even people with more scientific interests- learns. On a social level, it increases empathy and broadens perspectives. And the thing is, I’ve made this comparison to walking, but people who are unable to walk can and do live full lives. Being unable to read, on the other hand, is much, much more debilitating. Being able to read but choosing to let that skill atrophy leads to societal issues like being more susceptible to manipulation and propaganda. I could go on, but it isn’t dramatic to refer to societal literacy as a public health concern.
I have many thoughts about this, most likely because reading is my main hobby. It could be that some of them are unpopular opinions:
My 10yo will happily ready a new Diary of a Wimpy Kid book, but we are reluctant to buy them as he’ll finish it in an hour or two. They are fun by somewhat vapid stories. I’m pleased to see Into The Wild by Erin Hunter in their Primary Top Three books - the plots in the Warrior Cats series are quite complex and emotionally mature. I think we have nearly 40 novels from that series on our bookshelves now.
There are some shocking revelations from those two top 10 lists. The Harry Potter series and Hunger Games (both pre-teen Mainstays since I was in school) are featured on the girls list but not the boys list. Maybe boys are reading it but it's just further down but I found that a bit strange considering the action/adventure nature of those books. I've posted before that I'm not alarmist about these reading gap articles that tend to pose a sort of moral panic around boys not reading. With that said, I do think reading is good for everyone including young boys so I'm not sure what can be done to encourage them to read more. I'm interested in the success of a series like Diary of a Wimpy Kid which to me (I've only seen parts of the movie or tv show from a while ago) seems like a comedic slice-of-life series with a kid-friendly grossness factor. It feels like the kind of thing that could be replicated 100s to 1000s of times but at the same time no one has ever seemed capable of recapturing the magic that was the Harry Potter craze in its heyday. I've definitely seen kids reading these books but they also feel like the type of book someone would grab from the first table at Barnes and Noble and give to their nephew for Christmas.
I think there is a real similarity in both lists, boys tend to be reading Diary of a Wimpy Kid and girls tend to be reading Lottie Brooks. Both of these book series are about the realities of being a pre-treen/teen. There's loads of this for girls, when I was growing up there was Jacqueline Wilson, Louise Rennison, Joanna Nadin, and Karen McCombie writing this stuff. I'm not aware of books like this about boys for boys aside from Diary of a Wimpy Kid. There's very clearly an appetite for this so why are we seeing more books like this? Its possible they're not being written, but I think it's more likely they're not being published. For girls that aren't particularly interested in fantasy, there's quite a wealth of YA literature to choose from, for boys not so much. I think the reasons for the disparity in the article is very similar to the disparity between adult men and women's reading habits. Every woman I know has read Sally Rooney, but there just isn't a Sally Rooney for men (but marketed well I think Michael Magee or Adam Scovell are absolutely qualified). If we want boys and men to read more, we need to be writing/publishing books for them.
[removed]
"Tastes expanding" is a funny way of saying "discovering Booktok". A double-edged sword if you ask me
[removed]
[removed]
During my entire time in school, I think I remember actually enjoying 1 or 2 of the books that we read in our English lessons. I read almost nothing until I was probably about 12 or 13, when for some reason our library got one of the Halo novelisations, loved that but I definitely remember a bit of a sense of disapproval haha. The first series I remember really liking was the Magicians Guild trilogy by Trudi Canavan, but I didn't really get into reading for fun until after I finished school. I remember adults often telling me how good reading was for my development to try and encourage me, but then they seemed disappointed that I was more interested in genre fiction than "literary" books. This lasted well into teenage years. I think the instrumental way that reading is sometimes presented and the general context that students are (or at least how I was) introduced to reading may be counter productive.
The list on the final tell us much about how boys don't see the appeal on the books on the market, thus the vast majority of the books consisting of Diary of a Wimpy Kid, then they are just "stuck" on primary-level books. Shouldn't we help them finding books that can appeal to them, that aren't "primary-level", instead of just implying that they are just stuck?
"But that would mean the publishing institutions would have to *gasp* appeal to boys and men as they currently are!" Frankly I understand why publishing, a mostly left leaning institution, feels this way. If you look at many other things men are deeply into (sports, video game, Japanese Animation, Comics & Manga, etc) those mediums are rife with a lot of...problematic shit. Now, the appropriate thing in my opinion would to be honest with what people want AND create more progressive visions of that.
Okay what's the complaint here. Is it boys aren't reading or they aren't reading the same things as girls. The former is definitely an issue but the latter is really a nothing burger. Let people read what they want. The women around me are heavily into fantasy romance and all those sorts of stuff but it's whatever. I have my own flavor of trash, it's called Tom Clancy. If you like it who cares
[removed]
This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.