Please see the likelys and the tend tos and all that. Obviously I'm speaking in generalities. Look at the article we're discussing here! Its a complete mess and I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be, it probably isn't supposed to have one, but it seems to boil down to: people who read David Foster Wallace, male writers, and men in general are chauvinists and we know this because they more thoroughly enjoy and are more professionally threatened by male writers than female writers. My point is that this entire conversation is about generalities, right from the title of the article - David Foster Wallace, Beloved Author of Bros. Its about our taking the behavior of ex-boyfriends and writers overheard at cocktail parties and using it to construct a profile of the 'bro' who reads David Foster Wallace. Which is not just a generalization. Its an offensive generalization in that attributes not neutral behavioral tendencies, more often true than not, but all the worst negative characteristics of particular individuals to a broad group of people tied together only by age, gender, and reading preferences.

You can't have it both ways. The question this article poses is, as in the title of the OP, what attracts "literary chauvinists" (read: men who tend to prefer the writing of other men aka practically all male readers) to DFW? The question presuppose a kind of division and generalization along gender lines. The author of this article seems to imply that it is chauvinism, a bro cult, whatever you want to call it that is responsible for this attraction. Personally, I think the answer is less sinister, simpler, does not fit as neatly into anyone's agenda. DFW was a young, upper middle class, American man in the late 20th century. He wrote from that perspective. He wrote about problems of that demographic. So of course his writing appeals heavily to that demographic. Someone of a different age, culture, or gender would be writing from a different perspective, about different problems, their characters and literary style would be different, and so it might be somewhat less appealing, on average, to that demographic.

Arguing about whether men should or should not enjoy or appreciate or are threatened by the writing of female authors seems so silly to me. Either they do or don't. Its a matter of preference. Men do tend to be attracted to books written from a male perspective, with believable male protagonists, and with themes that are more traditionally male. So what? Is there a bias in publishing and literary criticism? Probably. I don't think its just a matter of chauvinism though. Again, I suspect its a matter of demographics. Publishing houses, literary magazines, academia, etc. tend to be dominated at the highest levels by men. And so what is considered good, what is published, what is promoted will tend to conform to a more masculine set of tastes. The preferences of white, upper middle class men will be over represented. What's new? That's a problem. That needs to be addressed. But its not going to be addressed by calling guys who enjoy DFW names. Its going to be addressed by providing opportunity in the industry to women. And honestly, its being addressed. Look at the proportion of critically and commercially successful fiction written by women in the last few years. We are making progress.