"This isn't the case for everyone nor everything. But it's an increasing trend, and one that I don't like to see. It's now okay for women to do the very things they hate men doing, and it's okay because women didn't spend all of history doing it. Oppression is still oppression, exclusion is still exclusion, and sexism is still sexism no matter which side it's coming from."
I agree with this so very much! But it does seem to be an 'un-pc' opinion. And probably one of the reasons I don't see myself as a 'feminist' - I have no problem with women in tradition roles, or liking traditionally 'girly' things, if that's what they want. If there was such a thing as an 'equalist', that would be me. I don't want the last engineering job because I'm a women, I want it because I'm qualified (I'm happy to point out that I made it into the School of Engineering under the male standards, not the watered-down weenie 'female' standards). I see nothing wrong with a stay-at-home mom, or a stay-at-home dad. A female firefighter is fine, so long as she can pass the physical standards to drag my sizable butt out of burning building.
...ahem. Sorry.
I think the difference between the genders shows up a lot less in non-fiction than in does in fiction. I have to admit that I just read a great non-fiction book and I couldn't tell you if the author was male or female... but looking it up, it was a female (The Poisoner's Handbook).
I read probably half-and-half male/female authors, but then I read everything from YA to nonfiction to mysteries to sci-fi to... yes, the occasional romance (though my tolerance for those has waned as I've gotten older).
"But when people complain about books for an intended audience actually reaching that audience"
That floors me. I think, perhaps, if you remove the gender issue maybe those people could get past that? But I doubt it. The fact that they are already pigeonholing people based on their gender (Men can't want to read cozy mysteries! Women can't like books about sports!) says a lot about them.
A book about fairies is intended for an audience that likes fairies. Period. If it does that, it's a good book for its niche.
(sorry that got so wrong, it's late and I'm rambling...)
no subject
I agree with this so very much! But it does seem to be an 'un-pc' opinion. And probably one of the reasons I don't see myself as a 'feminist' - I have no problem with women in tradition roles, or liking traditionally 'girly' things, if that's what they want. If there was such a thing as an 'equalist', that would be me. I don't want the last engineering job because I'm a women, I want it because I'm qualified (I'm happy to point out that I made it into the School of Engineering under the male standards, not the watered-down weenie 'female' standards). I see nothing wrong with a stay-at-home mom, or a stay-at-home dad. A female firefighter is fine, so long as she can pass the physical standards to drag my sizable butt out of burning building.
...ahem. Sorry.
I think the difference between the genders shows up a lot less in non-fiction than in does in fiction. I have to admit that I just read a great non-fiction book and I couldn't tell you if the author was male or female... but looking it up, it was a female (The Poisoner's Handbook).
I read probably half-and-half male/female authors, but then I read everything from YA to nonfiction to mysteries to sci-fi to... yes, the occasional romance (though my tolerance for those has waned as I've gotten older).
"But when people complain about books for an intended audience actually reaching that audience"
That floors me. I think, perhaps, if you remove the gender issue maybe those people could get past that? But I doubt it. The fact that they are already pigeonholing people based on their gender (Men can't want to read cozy mysteries! Women can't like books about sports!) says a lot about them.
A book about fairies is intended for an audience that likes fairies. Period. If it does that, it's a good book for its niche.
(sorry that got so wrong, it's late and I'm rambling...)