james_davis_nicoll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2011-02-10 04:52 am
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2011-02-10 04:52 am
Entry tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
If someone had just invented a memetic prophylactic tag, I never would have clicked on that link!
A HA HA HA, I saw that in my newsreader this afternoon and may possibly have shared it with a very similar comment...
I love it when you get to use that icon, too :-) Well played.
Well, it's _wrong_, but to me it didn't seem offensive, like the stuff that tag is usually applied to. In what way am I being clueless? (With the caveat that I didn't read the comments, so there might be nastiness there.)
(Second caveat: I am acquainted with one of the authors plugged, so maybe my brain got sidetracked by being happy for a friend getting free advertising.)
Respectfully,
NPH
(Second caveat: I am acquainted with one of the authors plugged, so maybe my brain got sidetracked by being happy for a friend getting free advertising.)
Respectfully,
NPH
I'd really love to see how the female list compares. I honestly doubt it's much longer, if at all.
Are those comments carefully vetted, or is no one seriously calling them out?
Are those comments carefully vetted, or is no one seriously calling them out?
We've been thinking about the men for the past 5000+ years.
I tease because I love. I could tell by your tone that the post you linked was going to be a barrel of laughs.
I said nice things about a good author listed there who's next book now has a ship date, but didn't point out the "well, now it's no longer a subgenre filled with girl cooties" thrust of the rest of the article, mainly because I couldn't believe that SOMEBODY would mention it at some point. Well, it *still* hasn't been mentioned and I feel like an idiot for not having done so. Then again, I'm temporarily on some pain meds that make me a little foggy so I may not be the best person to point it out, what with the interesting spackle pattern on the wall over here...
So I'm to take from this that "Abigail Johnson" is actually a man, not a woman wanting to address her own perception of a bias in a particularly-small subgenre (where such odd biases would be, I'd imagine, amplified)?
Huh. I always thought feminism was about equality, not revenge. Silly me!
I shall labor under that misimpression no longer, and quite possibly become one of those tiresome Men's Rights advocates while I'm at it.
Under the No True Scotsman rule, I'd guess that the author of the article is also a tool of the evil patriarchy, right?
I shall labor under that misimpression no longer, and quite possibly become one of those tiresome Men's Rights advocates while I'm at it.
Under the No True Scotsman rule, I'd guess that the author of the article is also a tool of the evil patriarchy, right?
Tone makes a difference here. I was thinking of it as a grimly amused statement of fact, rather than a "get out the torches" manifesto.
Me too (without the caveats). She even says, just before the actual list, that they suddenly don't seem quite so rare after all.
"particularly-small subgenre"... Which world have you been living in recently? They give "paranormal romance" it's own section in book stores now. There's multiple TV shows, and multi-million dollar movies in this "small subgenre".
Plus... Notice how there are so many comments on the article providing counter evidence to the premise...
Plus... Notice how there are so many comments on the article providing counter evidence to the premise...
AFAIK, tor.com's comments are completely unmoderated. So really, we're lucky it isn't worse.
AFAIK, tor.com's comments are completely unmoderated.
You may be correct; however, given what I know about the people who started the site, I rather doubt this is the case.
You may be correct; however, given what I know about the people who started the site, I rather doubt this is the case.
This is true; I will amend my statement to "I have never seen any evidence of moderatorial activity."
It's not so much the offensiveness of the premise (which can be summarized as "won't someone please think of the men"), but the obliviousness of the writer to her own thesis being not supported by the facts. In other words, even though she admits "suddenly they don't seem so rare", she continues to think and act as if male protagonists were a rare item in UF. She's failed to support her hypothesis and can't see it, and only one or two commenters even attempt to point this out.
I have nothing against books with male protagonists; I've spent more than 40 years reading a majority of books about men, by men and women. I rather like having more women in the lead, and it really doesn't give any one cause to complain about the lack of men.
I have nothing against books with male protagonists; I've spent more than 40 years reading a majority of books about men, by men and women. I rather like having more women in the lead, and it really doesn't give any one cause to complain about the lack of men.
I admire how polite you are to the angry mainsplainer. The whole "I've read a list of rhetorical fallacies and will now use them in my strawman argument." is kind of cute, but the "criticism equals revenge" thing is annoyingly stupid.
Page 1 of 4