The F-word discussion

Does a feminist pay her own way on a date? Does a feminist ask the man out? Your thoughts? Gentlemen feel free to chime in.

It depends. Maybe she lets the man pay and next time she pays. Although, being treated equally doesn't mean she can't be spoiled. And just because a man wants to pay, doesn't mean he expects anything in return or expects it means he gets to be the boss. I don't think you have to be a feminist to ask someone out—just an assertive person who overcomes their shyness. Just because certain actions (a man opening a door or paying for dinner) started in a patriarchal society, doesn't mean it's not a nice thing for a man to do for a woman and if she agrees to this treatment, it doesn't mean she is giving up her right to be treated equally.

Dionne wrote: "It depends. Maybe she lets the man pay and next time she pays. Although, being treated equally doesn't mean she can't be spoiled. And just because a man wants to pay, doesn't mean he expects anythi..."

Well said Dionne! Your statement describes my line of thought to a T. Thanks so much for your input

I love talking books and I love thought provoking questions!

If power corrupts, would women with power be as likely to be corrupted as men? Put another way, is there something about males that makes them more inherently corruptible by power than women?

Mal wrote: "Does a feminist pay her own way on a date? Does a feminist ask the man out? Your thoughts? Gentlemen feel free to chime in."

If either the woman or the man has expectations that differ from social norms (regardless of how antiquated those norms may be), such expectations should be discussed at the time the date is offered and accepted. Doing that would put an end to a lot of useless and awkward dates.

Any woman, feminist or not, should be able to ask any man for a date. His reaction, will tell her a lot about whether she actually wants to date him. Having said that, there are certain stereotypes held by a large segment of society that make the kind of discussion I mentioned above an essential part of a woman asking a man for a date.

Dan wrote: "Mal wrote: "Does a feminist pay her own way on a date? Does a feminist ask the man out? Your thoughts? Gentlemen feel free to chime in."

If either the woman or the man has expectations that differ..."

Excellent response Dan. I appreciate your thoughts. Always wonderful to hear the male persepective. Thank you for responding.

Shaun wrote: "As a side note, not all 'boys' grow up."

Excellent post Shaun. I agree with both comments post.

I wouldn't say women are immune to corruption but men are more likely to fall corrupt - ego, testosterone, male brain in general. Social pressure could also be a factor contributing to corruption.

Thank you for your partipation Shaun

Does patriarchy exist? Doesn’t the fact that men have more power, prestige, and influence in America confirm that patriarchy exists? What are your views on hegemony?

Hi Kathleen,

It's very sad what your daughter has had to deal with working in her industry. Women definitely have to deal with a LOT more than men, and I'm so tired of the PMS jokes too.

Personally, I feel stereotypes are wrong, even if they're deemed to be "positive" for the reason that we can't assume something about someone based on their colour or nationality. They could be true for a large part of the group, but what about the other part that they are not true for? For example, I've lost count of people who assume I am a fantastic dancer, singer or athlete on account of my skin colour. Yes, a lot of black women are, but what about the rest of us that aren't? I think often times stereotypes put a lot of pressure on a group of people, and I know many black people who say "I know it's against expectations, but I love opera music." Yes, I'm one of those black people who loves opera music. However, most people immediately assume I listen to hip-hop.I don't like stereotyping because it puts everyone in a box and many who are put in their boxes are scared to venture out of them. I say this because I am a "big sister" figure to many young girls of colour (not just black) who have interests and likes that are not considered "conventional" for their ethnic group. I constantly exhort them to do what moves them and to ignore the stereotypes. I am so happy when I see black gymnasts (Gabby Douglas), black figure skaters (we had a couple at our Winter Olympics here in Vancouver), black sopranos (Measha Brueggersgorman is one of Canada's treasures) making it, it can't have been easy for them but they did it! I'm all for encouraging people to go against the grain.

Anyway, those were just my 2 cents! I think it's great that we are such a diverse bunch and we probably have a lot of different viewpoints and experiences. This will definitely be a fun group to discuss things with :)

I agree with Rowena 100%; positive stereotype or not, you can't assume that a generalization applies to the individual, and assuming it does will limit appreciation of individuals in general. I just don't see what good comes from it.

Take the Asian math thing. I'm Asian. I'm good at math. I'm not good at math BECAUSE I'm Asian. I'm good at math because I worked really, really hard as a kid to be good at math. My sister is Asian. She is horrible at math. In my case, people assuming I'm good at math because I'm Asian lessens my accomplishment. People assuming my sister should be good at math because she's Asian make her feel guilty and stupid (although she's really highly intelligent despite being poor with figures).

I also believe that stereotypes are generally applied more to minority groups so, positive or negative, it creates a barrier, an "us" and "them" distinction. If a behavior is adopted by the majority group, it's considered "normal" and wouldn't become a stereotype. Stereotypes, by definition, have to be traits that differentiate a group from the norm.

To bring this back around, I feel the same applies for sex and gender. Assuming that women just are a certain way (or men or a certain way) doesn't help anyone. Like, the stereotype that women are more emotional than men. I'm a fairly unemotional woman. The perpetuation of the stereotype (and people assuming that I am emotional) might make me feel that something's wrong with me. (For the record, I don't think anything's wrong with me.)

Stereotypes can be useful. And they're not usually meant to be hurtful. But they shouldn't be applied to individuals. I know, I know, tl;dr, but let's go back to that emotional thing to demonstrate what I'm trying (without much eloquence) to say. There's probably a body of evidence that shows women are more emotional than men. But that doesn't mean that you should assume the women you interact with are more emotional or should be treated as such. Individuals should be treated as individuals.

Now all this is not to say that I found anything in this thread offensive--just my two cents on stereotypes.

Thanks Kara,

You made some great points!I especially like how you mentioned tying in Asian heritage to math aptitude lessens your achievements.

Shaun,

Thank you. Harmony is definitely essential and I'm sure we will have it in this group. Looking forward to more people contributing :)

I'm not a huge fan of harmony--I think contention drives far more interesting conversations--but I will try if harmony is the group's aim. Let me know if I step out of line.

:)

Kara wrote: "I'm not a huge fan of harmony--I think contention drives far more interesting conversations--but I will try if harmony is the group's aim. Let me know if I step out of line.

:)"

True!

I'm with Kara. Perhaps creating a respectful place is more important than harmony. Harmony does little to broaden one's mind.

Betsy wrote: "I'm with Kara. Perhaps creating a respectful place is more important than harmony. Harmony does little to broaden one's mind."

I am all about discussing issues - we may not share the same views. We just need to be considerate of how we share. Sensitivity levels must be considered. Inappropriate references should be omitted. I established "rules" to avoid offending members (hopefully) see GROUP RULES under The F-word information group home

Shaun wrote: "I meant harmony as in - everyone contributing to a positive atmosphere. It's unreasonable to insist we all agree on everything.

Perhaps I should look up 'harmony', appears my interpretation is far..."

Ha! Who knew that "harmony" would turn into one of the thought provoking questions!

Shaun wrote: "I meant harmony as in - everyone contributing to a positive atmosphere. It's unreasonable to insist we all agree on everything.

Perhaps I should look up 'harmony', appears my interpretation is far..."

Yes, I figured this is what you meant:) I mean we'll all have differing opinions but we can still be respectful:)

Rowena wrote: "Shaun wrote: "I meant harmony as in - everyone contributing to a positive atmosphere. It's unreasonable to insist we all agree on everything.

Perhaps I should look up 'harmony', appears my interpr..."

My point EXACTLY Rowena!

Just for reference...

The term harmony derives from the Greek ἁρμονία (harmonía), meaning "joint, agreement, concord",[5] from the verb ἁρμόζω (harmozo), "to fit together, to join".

One can argue, but it would seem to imply that harmony is not "agreement to disagree." It is, however, a musical term which has been twisted into more general use.

Meanwhile...
I find myself wondering whether we have the same stereotypes over her in the UK. Asians are good at maths?! The existence of stereotypes generally stems from some element of reality. I'm going to assume that a lot of Asian immigrants to the US went into accountancy or something? Women (on average) have lower upper-body strength than men. Men, on average, have shorter life expectancy than women. Women are actually not as good at navigation; men are congenitally incapable of asking directions.

Personally, as an author, I love stereotypes. Twisting and going against them makes for more interesting stories. I also love discovering evidence of some stereotype's validity or lack thereof. So...

Men tend to have a better grasp of spatial orientation than women, women tend to have better linguistic skills. It's true. Men are better at reading maps because they can grasp the relationship between map and environment better. When it comes to asking directions when his map reading skills fail, her ability with foreign languages is likely to be better. Of course, individuals vary.

On the other hand... Men are sex mad, women are faithful. Uh... not so much. Studies have shown that women are just as likely to seek flings on the side, particularly around the time they are most likely to conceive. Men want to sow their wild oats, sure, but their partners are looking for the best genes they can get for their kids.

We can't ignore stereotypes any more than we should assume their validity. "Stereotype" is not a "bad word," it's just a word. Stereotypes are not inherently bad or wrong; they need to be understood, examined, and worked against where they have a negative effect on the stereotyped.

For example, I find myself mildly annoyed to find myself branded as "inherently evil." By another guy no less. During World War I the men went out to fight and the women stayed at home, sure, but that doesn't mean the women were pacifists. Women would hand out white feathers to men who weren't out on the front; they wanted to be out there shooting Jerry, they just weren't allowed to go themselves. The Israeli Army's female officers are more feared than their male counterparts since they've been known to do some really horrible things to prisoners.

har·mo·ny
/ˈhärmənē/
Noun
The combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions with a pleasing effect.
The study or composition of musical harmony.
Synonyms
concord - accord - unison - agreement - unity

I don't care for stereotypes or labels. I prefer to be looked at as an individual, the same way I view others

As far as harmony - I understand views will vary on here, which is fine as long as both sides are presented in a mature and adult fashion. Debating is great as long as it's not offensive by using terms etc that WILL NOT be tolerated in this group.

From AJ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blr4xi...

I am a little confused on people that say they are NOT a feminist or they do NOT support feminism. THIS is my belief in what feminist/feminism means to me. Maybe you define feminism/feminist differently, if so please explain. THE F-WORD holds the same definition for both.


fem·i·nism
/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

fem·i·nist  
/ˈfemənist/
Noun
A person who supports feminism.
Adjective
Of, relating to, or supporting feminism.

I'm certainly a feminist, and that definition works for me.

Kara wrote: "I'm certainly a feminist, and that definition works for me."

I know we are in alignment Kara but I am curious about others. I keep seeing comments such as "I am not a feminist but...." makes me wonder how some define both words/terms.

Kara wrote: "I'm certainly a feminist, and that definition works for me."

Same here :)

I think the problem is there are several definitions of feminism out there because of the different waves of feminism. I think black feminists such as myself may be more into diversity and racial issues etc. Also, lesbian feminists would be more focused on LGBT issues. Hope I'm making sense!

I'd be curious as well.

I see this a lot at work. I'm part of a women's affinity group at my company, and I often hear people distance themselves from the term "feminist." It seems to me that some characterize feminism as fairly extreme--women thinking they're better than men, women wanting to take over the world, etc. But it doesn't have to be extreme. Feminism is as you've defined it above...when people say they aren't feminists, in my experience, they usually mean they don't want to be associated with the term "feminist," not that they don't agree with feminism as a philosophy or movement.

Rowena wrote: "Kara wrote: "I'm certainly a feminist, and that definition works for me."

Same here :)

I think the problem is there are several definitions of feminism out there because of the different waves of..."

I understand your point Rowena but isn't the rock bottom definition what I cited above? I just find it strange for a woman to say she isn't a feminist as defined above. Baffles me, how could a female NOT want equality??

Kara wrote: "I'd be curious as well.

I see this a lot at work. I'm part of a women's affinity group at my company, and I often hear people distance themselves from the term "feminist." It seems to me that some..."

I agree Kara. I have now included both words/terms in the group area section. Hopefully members will see this to make sure they are in alignment with this group.

Also, there are actually women out there who don't want equality. I have met a couple. They firmly believe their place is behind, that their role is to follow.

Mal wrote: "Rowena wrote: "Kara wrote: "I'm certainly a feminist, and that definition works for me."

Same here :)

I think the problem is there are several definitions of feminism out there because of the dif..."

Yes, I was thinking that too. You're right of course but I guess the definition can be expanded to detail the other aspects. When I read an anthology by feminists of colour (Asian, Black, Hispanic), they were uncomfortable with mainstream feminism which refused to acknowledge their unique needs.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm relatively new to discussing feminism so I can't always get my thoughts down concisely.

Kara wrote: "Also, there are actually women out there who don't want equality. I have met a couple. They firmly believe their place is behind, that their role is to follow."

Yup! I know quite a few as well. Florence Nightingale was one such person, oddly enough.

Wow, I'd never heard that about Nightingale--interesting fact.

Kara wrote: "Wow, I'd never heard that about Nightingale--interesting fact."

You should read:

The Ascent of Woman: A History of the Suffragette Movement and the Ideas Behind It

I learned a lot from it :)

Rowena wrote: "Kara wrote: "Wow, I'd never heard that about Nightingale--interesting fact."

You should read:

The Ascent of Woman: A History of the Suffragette Movement and the Ideas Behind It

I learned a lot f..."

Thanks Rowena, I will give it a read. You are so right Kara. Just because I have never encountered those women doesn't mean they don't exist.

Rowena wrote: "Mal wrote: "Rowena wrote: "Kara wrote: "I'm certainly a feminist, and that definition works for me."

Same here :)

I think the problem is there are several definitions of feminism out there becaus..."

Another reason why I created Kaliedoscope. I can understand how individual concerns merit addressing. .

When I was growing up, a kid but still old enough to be aware of these sorts of things (early 70s through mid-80s, older elementary school through my early twenties) a lot of the feminists who got public stage time were about more than just "equality for women." They were also against the sex industry, as an example. Women owned their own bodies and could make their own choices about what to do with them when the topic under discussion was birth control and abortion, but suddenly women were NOT supposed to make their own choices about their bodies if what they chose to do with them was act in adult movies, work as models for erotic photos, or as strippers or erotic dancers, or provide sexual services commercially. It was a blatant piece of hypocrisy that was clear to me even as a young teenager.

Either women should have autonomy and agency over what they do with their bodies or they shouldn't -- pick one. Some of the feminists who got into papers and magazines and onto talk shows when I was young thought they could have it both ways. Freedom was only for those who agreed with these women, who called themselves feminists.

The impression I got was that these particular women didn't so much want to free women from tyranny (of the patriarchy or society or tradition or whatever), as they wanted women to change over to being tyranized by them. "Be free my way." That didn't sound like a good deal to me, so although I've always believed that women should be equal to men legally, economically, socially -- in accordance with your definition above -- I was in... probably my early forties before I felt comfortable calling myself a "feminist," and even now I don't use that word much to describe myself.

tl;dr -- There were prominent feminists out there I strongly disagreed with, and I refused to wear the same label they were wearing.

Angie

Angela wrote: "When I was growing up, a kid but still old enough to be aware of these sorts of things (early 70s through mid-80s, older elementary school through my early twenties) a lot of the feminists who got ..."

Thank you for your comments Angela, appreciate your participation.

Angela,
thank you, very interesting point you make. It made me think of the law-changes in several European countries a few years ago, that restrict women from wearing head veils. Any law that removes power from women in regards to their looks or clothing feels very infantilizing.

For example, I'd like to live in a place with a culture without over-sexualisation of the female body, but would always oppose such a legislation.

In regards of prostitution, we have an interesting law in Sweden that criminalises the person that pays for sex, not the prostitute. I don't know enough about the subject to have an analyzed opinion about it though.

Mal wrote: "Thank you for your comments Angela, appreciate your participation."

Thanks. :)

Another example -- a lot of the feminists of my youth (which makes me sound really old, LOL!) were very disrespectful and dismissive of women who wanted to be full-time housewives and mothers. Such women were told that that wasn't really what they wanted, that they didn't know their own minds, that they'd been brainwashed by the patriarchy.

Again, "be free my way." If a woman (or a man, for that matter) wants to stay home and tend the household and raise kids full-time, and their family can afford to do without whatever income they'd bring in, then IMO that's their choice to make. But to the feminists, if you weren't out there working as a doctor or a lawyer or a jackhammer operator, you were a brainwashed victim of male-dominated society. One of the main reasons the Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass is because the feminists pushing for it alienated far too many women who would've been in favor of true equality, but were made to feel that they themselves were inferior for their choices. With large blocks of women working and voting against ERA, as well as a lot of men, it was doomed.

Angie

Adriana wrote: "Angela,
thank you, very interesting point you make. It made me think of the law-changes in several European countries a few years ago, that restrict women from wearing head veils. Any law that remo..."

I agree that legislation against veils is ridiculous. The impression I've gotten is that it's primarily a racist issue, rather than a misogynistic one. There are some people who see it as "protecting the women," though, as if Moslem women need to be protected from their own choices. Protect them against men who'd beat or murder them for their choices, sure, just like we (theoretically [cough]) protect everyone from battery and murder. But if a woman wants to wear a veil, whether just a head-scarf of a full length covering (I don't know the proper terms and am too lazy to Google right now), that should be up to them. I agree that dictating their dress, especially if it's said to be for their own good, is infantilizing.

For example, I'd like to live in a place with a culture without over-sexualisation of the female body, but would always oppose such a legislation.

I'd like to live in a culture where anyone, man or woman, can dress to show off their body and it's not a big deal. Or can dress for warmth or comfort or utility or for any other purpose of their own, and it's not a big deal. If there weren't any men who believed that any woman who dresses in a sexy fashion must be available for his use, and that he's justified in getting angry and violent when she turns him down, then that'd solve most of the problem. And if people in general stopped judging women by how they dress -- stopped making negative judgements in general, whether for dressing too sexy or too dowdy or too straightlaced or too weird -- if we could see women as individuals regardless of how they dress, then the sexualization of women wouldn't be a thing.

On prostitution, it's always existed and always will. It's like drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) in that I can't honestly imagine a human society without it in some form. Trying to stamp it out, whichever end you go after, is like trying to command the tide to stay out -- it's a pointless waste of resources, and makes the people trying look silly. There are some aspects of prostitution that suck, yes, but if it were legal and regulated, we could greatly reduce the suck, just as we have for many other jobs. Factory work was a killer -- literally -- in the 19th century, for example, but reforms have made it much safer and more humane. If we put that kind of effort into reforming prostitution as a profession, it'd be just another job and we could turn our resources to other things.

Angie

Last part first: I was going to comment, but Angela has said it for me.

French legislation against veils (I assume that's what's being discussed there) isn't especially racist or misogynistic, it's French. The French have a history of being pretty open about things outside of France, but if you enter their country, especially to live there, you're expected to conform to their culture. In Britain we have tended to absorb and accept other cultures instead. Only time is going to tell whether one method is better than the other.

Like Britain,Canada is quite accepting of other cultures and we're known as a mosaic as opposed to a melting pot. It's a good thing in many ways and the law has even been amended for Sikh police officers to wear turbans while on duty, while other Sikhs are allowed to wear kirpans in court.

On the other side are people who think that Canada has little social cohesion because people keep their home cultures. I think if there is a lack of social cohesion it's because of other factors, such as the general marginalization of minorities.

Same in the UK. I don't think there's a law about Sikh police officers and turbans though.

It's a cultural philosophy stemming from the days of the British Empire, I think. Back then everyone was treated (un)equally and we've tried to be really nice about "minorities" ever since. I guess once you've messed up the world once there's nowhere you can go but up.

Diverging from that conversation, I just noticed Angela's last paragraph on prostitution and the like. In the Netherlands prostitution was legalised. Prostitutes pay tax, have mandated health check-ups; it's a regulated business. I believe that Dutch prostitutes have some of the best treatment of breast and ovarian cancers in the world since these tend to be caught quickly. This is not to say that there is not some stigma to the industry, you can't shift hundreds of years of prejudice in a few generations, but people working in it are better off than in other countries.

Here's one I just saw on Twitter. A reader reviewed a book and happily called it women's fiction. A couple of other women have chimed in that they don't like that label because it signals a demotion and that all fiction should just be called fiction. The author said, well I right fiction for women so shouldn't it be called women's fiction.

What are your thoughts. I agree with the label women's fiction in that it's similar to chic flicks - aka something men don't like. LOL

Coral wrote: "Here's one I just saw on Twitter. A reader reviewed a book and happily called it women's fiction. A couple of other women have chimed in that they don't like that label because it signals a demotio..."

I think the question is, what else would you call it? Calling all fiction just "fiction" doesn't work on any practical level. Genres exist so that readers can find the kind of fiction they like, and bookstores have a way of organizing their stock. Lumping it all together as "fiction" would piss off 99.9% of the readers who buy books, so no, the bookstores and publishers aren't going to do that. [wry smile]

I agree that "women's fiction" (and "chick flicks") does sound vaguely condescending or even a little pejorative, so that's an issue. What else should we call it? I'm not into women's fiction, but it seems to be about a woman (always a female protag) who's having some issues in her life that affect her view of the world or who she is. It's not a romance, or it'd be a "romance." It might be a story about a romance that fails, where the point is the woman getting out of a bad situation, or learning something about herself (what she does or doesn't need in a partner, or how she chooses partners?) rather than the HEA of a genre romance. Or it might have no romantic plotline at all, and be about her the female protag deals with her job or her family or something else personal to her. Is that accurate?

So how would we describe that? And if we want to justify not using the word "women" in the description at all, can we think of how to write the same kind of book with a male protag, and imagine any significant number of men reading it? Because if it's always about women, or if women are 99% of the audience, then NOT using "women" in the genre name when there's no obvious and clear alternative seems like we're walking around three sides of a square just to be stubborn.

This is more long-term, but I think a better solution would be to change society so that something being "for women" is no longer seen as being lesser or smaller or relatively unimportant. We should be able to call something "women's fiction" without having anyone (who's not recognized by the rest of society as being an ignorant jerkwad) roll their eyes or sneer. It's that perception of "lesser" that's the real problem, not the genre name in and of itself, IMO. And fixing the perception problem would also fix a lot of other things besides just a couple of genre names.

Angie

Angela wrote: "Coral wrote: "Here's one I just saw on Twitter. A reader reviewed a book and happily called it women's fiction. A couple of other women have chimed in that they don't like that label because it sig..."

We don't call Babbitt 'men's fiction' nor is Death of a Salesman a play just for guys. So why continue to stigmatize women's stories with a 'special' genre.

In the realm of fiction/literature part of the game has always been about the discovery of what the author is really saying. That is the personal dialogue between the author and another human being with out pre-sorting of just who gets to read it.

Educational children's literature morphed from what children could learn from or understand easily based on age and progress into what was safe and what wasn't a couple generations or more in the past based largely on community standards or morals. In other words, censorship.

There are and have been female protagonists throughout literature in wide ranging roles from detectives to killers to pioneers to scientists. The need to write to a particular gender and force a label on it was discounted a long time ago in terms of popularity with one early example being the Nancy Drew detective stories. When given equal access (O.K. meddling parents, librarians, and professionals that wish to force gender stereotypes can screw this up easily) boys will read Nancy Drew more readily than the Hardy Boys. Generally because they are better written and have better stories.

One only needs wander the aisles of bookstore or search on the Internet for mystery or detective stories to find works about women and by women dominating the majority of newer (25 years or so) titles. They are not labeled 'women's detective' or 'women's mystery fiction' in either venue except in some dark corner of the search engines that will let you search for anything. These are but one example.

I am not a big fan of many of the arbitrary divisions many booksellers resorted to over the years for fiction. It seems a bit juvenile like 13 year old who only reads a particular kind of book for entertainment.

These divisions also seem to smack closely of warning signs that suggest passive censorship. If I don't like a work, I can put it down. And if a book is one I'm not supposed to read, that's the first thing I'm going to look at. Started that way as a child. The school librarians were not amused.

A final thought in this quasi stream of conscious diatribe.

The pejorative label of 'chik-anything' is too often applied not just because of gender but also as an easy and thus more damning commentary on the quality of a work. Someone doesn't like a book, movie, TV show, it far easier to give it a label without doing any intellectual work. It is a preventative formulation that is used to effect censorship.

CD wrote: "Angela wrote: "Coral wrote: "Here's one I just saw on Twitter. A reader reviewed a book and happily called it women's fiction. A couple of other women have chimed in that they don't like that label..."

But mysteries with female protags aren't called "women's mysteries," they're just called "mysteries." So they're not part of the subject (or genre) under discussion. I never said that all books with female protags should be lumped under "women's fiction" and if I gave that impression, then I apologize for miscommunicating.

There's currently a genre called "women's fiction." I described it, as I (who've only read a very few examples) understand it, in my comment above. I asked before, and ask again, what would you call it, if we erased "women's fiction" from the sign?

I'm not talking about SF with a female protag, or fantasy with a female protag, or historical fiction with a female protag, or anything else that has its own genre label. I'm talking about those books on the "Women's Fiction" shelf section at the bookstore. What would you call those books, if we're not calling them "women's fiction?" If you can come up with something clear and descriptive, which lets fans of those books find them and readers who don't care for them to easily avoid them, without having any gender label in the term, then great. But keep in mind that that's exactly the point of genre labels -- to let people who want to buy those books find them, and people who want to avoid those books do so.

Angie

Angela wrote: "CD wrote: "Angela wrote: "Coral wrote: "Here's one I just saw on Twitter. A reader reviewed a book and happily called it women's fiction. A couple of other women have chimed in that they don't lik..."

Right, Angie those books already have labels. Books that you can label Literary Fiction doesn't depend on it being written by a man or a woman or sex of the main protagonist.

I don't mind the women's or chic's label because it caters to me, a woman. It is written specifically as something I can identify with at least that's what I expect from something labeled that way. I actually hate straight romance. lol But my husband reads it.

Mal wrote: "Shaun wrote: "As a side note, not all 'boys' grow up."

Excellent post Shaun. I agree with both comments post.

I wouldn't say women are immune to corruption but men are more likely to fall corrup..."

Shaun wrote: "Good morning,

Males are more inherently corruptible. The ugly head of susceptibility is rooted in the male genes. Observe a coed group of youngsters and you'll more likely see the boys running aro..."

Hey Mal and Shaun,
several studies show that the allegedly "male brain" and hormones have nothing to do with certain character traits women and man are supposed to have.
The claim that men and women use different parts of the brain does not hold up in these studies.*
The whole Female: emotional,gentle, good, caring, soft and men:hard, aggressive, competitive, unemotional, reasonable, is a construct that derives from the 19. century.

Inga

* see Murat Yucel et al. "Hemispheric and gender-related differences in the gross morphology of the anterior cingulate/paracingulate cortex in normal volunteers, 2001 an others.