Author: Jill has written 4631 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

8 Responses

  1. 1
    Sarah in Chicago 7.13.2007 at 5:58 pm |

    Ghu, that “MISSBEHAVE” magazine sounds atrocious … I went through to that link, and there initially people that rightly noticed the “but we’re not feminist” comment and then the defenders launched in saying the first posters were obviously hateful (and particularly in a manner whereby you could tell even a passing acquaintance with a grammar text hadn’t occurred).

    I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone that says ” … but I’m not a feminist” or the like … because, you think men and women are equal? Then you’re a fucking feminist.

  2. 2
    ellenbrenna 7.13.2007 at 6:53 pm |

    the MISSBEHAVE writers sound like the kind of rebels who imagine casual sex acts are actually layaway payments on a nice big engagement ring…

    Gloria Steinem kind of rocks but there is a lot of mediocre formulaic literature out there whether it be chick lit or crime novels or Clancyesque spy crap. I doubt the Devil Wears Prada and the like qualify as great literature anymore than The Bourne Identity does. The derisive way in which the term chick lit is used is quite objectionable but that concern does not raise the quality of much of the work in the category itself.

  3. 3
    Kitty 7.13.2007 at 8:10 pm |

    I struggle every time I see that most porn is degrading to women. While I agree that there’s a lot of crappy porn out there that is, there’s also a lot of better porn out there that isn’t. If anything, why not protest certain companies like Extreme Associates that make a point out of treating their employees poorly, and insist that porn companies treat their porn stars as employees or independent contractors, thus giving them more rights, instead of pornography itself? I feel like it’s not a question of degrading people sexually in pornography as much as it’s the fact that sex work of any kind is treated as less than other work, and people are being degraded as workers.

  4. 4

    [...] t bothered me about Marcotte’s take and makes them more explicit and more obnoxious! To wit: Amanda on how Details magazine hates men. And women. I would say t [...]

  5. 5
    anna 7.13.2007 at 9:07 pm |

    Gloria Steinem kind of rocks but there is a lot of mediocre formulaic literature out there whether it be chick lit or crime novels or Clancyesque spy crap. I doubt the Devil Wears Prada and the like qualify as great literature anymore than The Bourne Identity does. The derisive way in which the term chick lit is used is quite objectionable but that concern does not raise the quality of much of the work in the category itself.

    If you ask me, the trouble is great writers like Jane Austen are being called “chick lit” and lumped in with writing like The Devil Wears Prada, like it’s all just mushy “girl’s stuff.”

  6. 6
    Violet Socks 7.13.2007 at 10:54 pm |

    Jill, thank you so much for picking up on the Simone D. story. Bless your heart.

  7. 7
    preying mantis 7.13.2007 at 11:51 pm |

    “I doubt the Devil Wears Prada and the like qualify as great literature anymore than The Bourne Identity does.”

    The one anecdote I really love that encapsulates the attitude toward “chick lit” so well was from a woman who was reading something like Devil Wears Prada on a plane. A dude sitting near her sort of sneered at the cover, shook his head, and asked her how she could read that chick-lit crap before returning to his own book: the latest from John Grisham, master of the definite article.

    What gets me isn’t that people roll their eyes and point out that something like 95% of it has little enduring literary merit. It’s that it being for and by women manages to automatically knock it several rungs down the literary ladder than it really deserves to be. Pulpy mindless potboiler geared toward a “general” (read, male) audience? Meh. It’s a potboiler, and it’s okay so long as you don’t expect much more than that. Market it to a female audience? Ridiculous, mind-rotting drivel that makes whoever taught you to read regret having bothered. It doesn’t matter if the book is actually a heartbreaking work of staggering genius–you can tell by the art and color scheme that it’s about women, ergo it’s the text equivalent of a Barbie makeover party and nobody with a penis in their right mind could ever give a rat’s ass about what’s inside that pink cover.

    There’s also been a really annoying tendency lately for reviewers to specifically point out an author’s gender if she’s female and include some stupid remark about how the book is totally not chick lit. One of The Onion’s AV Club reviews actually went so far as to say it would have been better if the female author had used her first initial rather than her identifiably female first name (you know, like female journalists were frequently asked to do in the ’70s), because her book was actually well-written and interesting, and it would be a crying shame if something with such “muscular, masculine” prose was consigned to the chick-lit ghetto. Never mind that the only thing it appeared to have in common with that genre was the gender of the author.

  8. 8
    Azundris 7.16.2007 at 7:16 am |

    What about Colette?

Comments are closed.