Explain this

Surveys show that 82 percent of women read a least single book in a year, compared to 69 percent of men; both the mean (14) and median (6) numbers of books read by women per year are higher than numbers of books read by men (10 and 4, respectively). Goodreads' numbers show that women read twice as many books published in a current year as men do.

However, publications aren't hiring women to review books — for example, at the New York Review of Books, only 19 percent of reviewers were women; at the London Review of Books, 18 percent. They aren't reviewing books by women, either; again at the NYRB and LRB, the percentages of female-authored books reviewed are 21 and 23, respectively.

Sexism

This. Men shouldn't make tampons either

>However, publications aren't hiring women to review books — for example, at the New York Review of Books, only 19 percent of reviewers were women; at the London Review of Books, 18 percent.
First of all it is inaccurate to say they are "not hiring women" since 1/5th of those employed are women. Secondly, why should the percentage of women readers equal the percentage of women reviewers? It seems like the fact that a gap exists is assumed to be a sign of mistreatment of women rather than some innocuous explanation instead of actually showing the mistreatment.

>the percentages of female-authored books reviewed are 21 and 23, respectively.
The proportion of female authors has nothing to do with who is reading them or who is reviewing them. The amount of books authored by men could simply be higher than female authored books.

Well women obviously don't want to be reviewers.

If you did breakdown of what types of books most women and men read it'll be something like this:
Romance:80% women. 5% men
Sci fi: 5% Women. 35% men
Classics:10% women. 35% men
Nonfiction:5% women. 25% men

You don't need a lot of editors for reviewing the types of books women read. Does it feature romance? Check. Print sell.

inb4 a bunch of butthurt alt-righters post ITT and claim that it is somehow okay for women to be discriminated against like this

IQ distribution and base rates. Women's IQ clusters around the mean, while men's has more spread, which entails more smart males than women, but also more male dumbasses. The base rate for book stats is drawn from a site (goodreads) that reviews the average book, which would rule out male dumbasses and heavily favor the average person (of which there are more women). Elite literature reviews are going to favor higher IQ. While there are still women in this category, the base rate favors the men who outnumber them.

Would be more interesting if they broke up the Goodreads reviews of certain books by gender.

(Thou)

>already forming strawmen in your head
Wow, this really made my neurons fire

>women being discriminated against in 2017
>2010+7
What world do you live in? The only people that are discriminated against in this country are white males.

probably jewish women didn't want those jobs and they refused to hire gentiles, sorry, hard to get mad about it, shrug

>but also more male dumbasses.
Which is why you see more men reviewing "classics" in acts of public intellectual masturbation - that 3:1 autism ratio means there's a lot more male autists pretending to understand Sun-Tzu and Socrates out there than women.

This gender gap bullshit is a waste of time and energy for anyone who participates in it, left and right. Are you proud, OP, that this thread killed a more worthy one?

have you tought that maybe there are not a lot of women who want to work as a book reviewer.

No this is clearly not the case you fuckers. My mother wants to be a book reviewer but every time she gets an interview they tell her to fuck off because she's a woman. You can't be this blind. Discrimination is real.

Logistic investigations and survey tend to take quantity judgement. Most of these women who read at least one book a year read really low brow literature, meaning that few women
(of the ones portrayed in the survey) don't have the professional profile to review or write substancial articles for publication.

I like this game of putting people into boxes. It's fun and satisfying.

maybe your mother just fucking sucks at writing, writing isn't investment banking, you can't just swap out some protestants for nignogs and milfs and everything is the same, writing actually takes talent

>reading a book is the same as critiquing a book

i bet you're a woman

>they tell her to fuck off because she's a woman.

1. proff

2. unless there are only 2 reviewers allowed in the entire country, I don't see how that proves that women want to be reviewers just as much as men

Or it could be - God forbid - that you are simply too stupid to appreciate the reviews, but are not too stupid to not know about Goodreads?

A - the fact that you read/buy more books as a group does not imply that the individuals in that group are the best at judging books. You can have individual men being better at what women do most often as a group. E.g.: most high level chefs are men, even if statistically women cook more.

B - Same things for writers with an extra step. Not only the fact that women read more does not imply that they are better writers deserving to be reviewed, but the general fact that ANYONE reads a lot does not necessarily make him a better writer.

Try literally putting them into boxes. It's even more satisfying.

Have you thought that that might be a problem

"Books"

nice feet

>Classics:10% women
wew thats quite high user
Nothing dries a pussy up like quality literature does.

Why does every profession have to have an even split of men/women?

Why can't liberals just relax and accept that women and men aren't exactly the same?

When will you be satisfied?

it's cause they don't hire some fucking casuals reading 10/15 books a year, since you should at least read 80 to become somewhat good in what you do. They hire the pros and the hardcore readers, and in this case I bet most of them are men, just like the best of the best in every field

Her brain is probably rotten with worms. She probably drools all over herself, constantly shits her pants, etc.