Hi, I'm a female and this is my first time here. Are

Not at all. Lolita is a favorite of mine.

Ehh, I'll bite. Your bait at least looks interesting.

Could you explain further what you mean by "misogynists when it comes to reading"? Your following question suggests that you conceptualize literary misogyny only as not reading "female-centric books," but I find even that phrase vague and unwieldy.

>>10013943
For example my last boyfriend refused to read anything written by a women for women( such as Jojo Moyes or bronte sisters. He most stuck to classical stuff and some sci-fi which I at least try to read on occasion

>>10013959
Did he explain why? Did he even have a reason?

>>10013932
Why would I read fiction?

File: mailer_1955_200-897850bb67d60d97c17fa0cfb3fb12ad92a16c54-s300-c85.jpg (14KB, 200x306px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x306px

>>10013961

>>10013959
Being misogynistic is not wanting to read something written specifically for women?

Is this how low the bar is? Is everything discrimination now?

I guess I am Portuguese-ist because I don't want to read stuff written specifically by Portuguese people for Portuguese people...

>>10013932
I put off reading Anna Karenina for a long time because I was reluctant to read a book about a woman.
I am glad I finally got around to reading it though. The parts with Levin hunting with his dog, or even just mowing grain on his farm were so comfy.
And Vronsky was alpha as fuck. Racing horses, gambling, plowing married sloots and then at the end going off to Serbia to remove kebab or die trying. He knew how to live life. I just skimmed or skipped the woman chapters.

>>10013932
I'm reading "Demons of the Flesh: The Complete Guide to Left-Hand Path Sex Magick" by Nikolas + Zeena Schreck, which is can be described as female-centric. Apart from that my reading is very male-centric as almost all books I know were written by men and in all likelihood for themselves, and I take offense in you labeling my preference as mysoginistic.

i guess my taste is pretty masculine. i've never read anything from austen or the brontes, for instance, and while i'm not opposed to reading their works there are dozens of other novels i'd rather get around to first. flannery o'connor is a favorite of mine, but i don't think she really fits into the "by women for women" category.

Ayn Rand was very enjoyable to read.

About the only woman writer I can stand is Evelyn Waugh. All the other females are just pure cancer.

>>10013932
Lurk moar you stupid bitch. This is also an unoriginal and gay bait.

>>10014031
lol

I think it's pretty common for guys to avoid female authors, due to a perception that it will just end up being about love and whatnot. Broads tend to read more broadly. Actually, I'm sure I read all this somewhere.

>>10014123
>8 years old guardian article

File: 662220633.jpg (127KB, 630x448px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 630x448px

>>10014123

>>10013932 (OP)
I have read and enjoyed Dickinson, Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Alcott (I adore Little Women), and Woolf.

I dislike Emily Bronte and hate Gertrude Stein. I dislike Shelley's Frankenstein despite loving Romantic literature. Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird is boring tripe in my opinion. Sylvia Plath is self-indulgent.

That's about the size of it. Unfortunately, there just aren't as many good female authors as there are male.
I'll specifically avoid any female (or male) author with a political bone to pick (like Atwood), so that narrows down the women I'll read at all.
I'm a pretty effeminate man, and I'm no fan of ultra-masculine literature like Hemingway, so I don't avoid women on that principle, as the poster above has suggested some men do (I don't doubt this is true.)

I hope this answer is satisfactory

>>10014031
kek

>>10014124
melmagazine.com/amp/p/378a1bb926be

Alright, here's one from this year, then.

>>10013932
>For example do you read female-centric books like Jane Eyre?
i have no idea unlike you sexist lot i don't care about the genitalia of the author and just read books that are good

>>10014147
>non-Jewish publication
That propaganda is no better

>>10014147
>In an ideal literary scene, everyone would publish transparently. That pen names exist is a testament to the reality’s imperfection. It’s depressingly predictable—these men treating the solution to a problem of their making as a potential exploit in a system that affords them every other advantage. Thousands have inhaled their work, as will thousands more, without the slightest concern as to the authors’ genitalia — it’s not usually forefront in one’s mind when absorbed in a gripping beach read — which is, after all, as it should be. Perhaps male writers could stop thinking about it so much themselves.

Besides you ought not to pay self-reporting surveys much credence. The answers you gave to the Durex survey were hardly accurate.

>>10013932
I've been boycotting women writers ever since the females only screenings of Wonder Woman.
Can't say I miss them.

File: 170727-hillary-clinton-book-mn-0710_355921c6f3c19d87fb2a3fa8a72a5f2c.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg (58KB, 663x1000px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 663x1000px

>>10014186
But?

>>10014127
Centre-left looks cute.

>>10014123
>in other news, women complaining they don't make as much money as men
>one has to wonder if it is because they refuse to put down their eric, simply eric pageturners, in order to pick up more hours with their employer

>>10014031
kek

>>10014127
32145

>>10013959
>refused to read anything written by a women for women
So he read things written by women for the general public? How is that bad? I am a man and I must say I am not enticed to read things that are specifically written for someone that isn't me.