Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Eldorion]

The popular perception is that "They hate us for our freedoms". Plus, a lot of people still think that the US has spread freedom and democracy through the War on Terror because it ousted repressive regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Pettytyrant101]

I have to admit Eldo when I saw the name of the website in that link I feared the worse, but overall a suprisingly good article and far more in depth than I expected- I assume this is not the sort of information the average American gets (even if here and there it does seem to be trying to offer occasional justification).
I find it odd a Christain establishment is the one reporting it though- does the Christian Church in America speak out against US foreign policy and highlight the doublestandards and cruelty?

[Pettytyrant101]

Odd site, from an indepth piece on the Middle east to one on why washington should accept prayer as part of medical policy! What a strange country you live in Eldo.

[Eldorion]

I find it odd a Christain establishment is the one reporting it though- does the Christian Church in America speak out against US foreign policy and highlight the doublestandards and cruelty?

It really depends on the church in question. A lot of the fundamentalist churches are very conservative but some of the more liberal ones support a lot of progressive (by American standards) politics. Both are heavily involved in political life, despite being supposed to stay apolitical since they all enjoy tax-free status. The Christian Scientists are a bit odd since they have number of unorthodox beliefs, but the Christian Science Monitor is not a terribly religious paper.

While I'm sure it reflects the attitudes of the Christian Scientists to some extent, the Monitor has a reputation as one of the more reliable and less hysterical news sources in the country (and I notice the prayer article is op/ed). I think it is more thoughtful and accurate than most news sources. Most Americans wouldn't be seeing a nuanced discussion of America's flawed and oppressive history from major cable news or most newspapers.

That said, the beliefs of Christan Scientists would explain the article about prayer and medicine: Christian Scientists have some rather bizarre views on evil and sickness and many of them reject medicine, choosing instead to just pray for people to be healed. This has caused legal troubles for some members of the church when children are sick but their parents refuse them medical care.

Odd country indeed...

[Pettytyrant101]

They should keep it simple like in Scotsdale. We Scotshobbits all say our prayers in the same circumstances 'talking to God on the great white telephone'. (Throwing up into the toilet with a particularly bad hangover interspersed with cries of "Please God make it stop!" ). True fact you know.

[Eldorion]

That certainly is a simpler way of handling religion.

[Pettytyrant101]

PM David Cameron decided to mark Father's Day but making a speech attacking absent Fathers;

'The prime minister said fathers who failed to "financially and emotionally" support their children must face consequences.
"It's high time runaway dads were stigmatised and the full force of shame was heaped upon them," he said.
"They should be looked at like drink-drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they're doing is wrong; that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn't acceptable."

However he has said this at the same time as denying access to the Child Support Agency to millions of single parents, and those who need to go through the CSA to get payments out of an ex for their child will be charged for the service with a single payment of £100 (£50 if on benefits) and the governemtn will take 7% of all the money that the absent parent pays. Amazingly this is being put forward as a good thing and not just government money grabbing at the expense of the most vulnerable, oh no, its just "encouraging separating couples to organise their own payments".
And on top of that his incredibly simple (and I'm sure he thought) populist speech is coming under attack from single parent agencies;

Fiona Weir, from Gingerbread - which campaigns on behalf of single parents.
"David Cameron is right that single mums - and indeed single dads - do a heroic job, but those same parents are about to have government support ripped away from them if they need help securing child maintenance payments from their child's other parent," she said. "If the prime minister really wants to support heroic single parents, he must withdraw these damaging proposals which would limit access to the CSA.'

And Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first UK's women's refuge, said Mr Cameron was displaying a lack of understanding about the reality of family break-ups.
"There are a lot of reasons why [fathers are] not with their children... not least that women won't let them," she said.
Ms Pizzey said it was wrong to single out men, adding: "There is a vast mass of women who are equally as feckless as the men and we never talk about them."

So is this just yet another example of this Tory led government making stuff up on the hoof, hopeing it sounds popular and then announcing it before they have thought it through? (I really am starting to lose count of the number of policies and initiatives this has now happened with). Is Cameron just a weak, not bright enough rich kid treating the country as a toy box? 'Cause thats how he is looking to me.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Sorry to be away so long again.

First things first. I love the new look and the addition to the forum name.

There are a number of issues that clearly link events in the US and the UK. The concerted push by the Fascist Parties (Republicans, Tories) to tear down the last vestiges of "democracy" on both side of the pond; and doing so with the feeble bleatings of the Conservative Parties (Democrats, Lib Dems) which look more and more like enabling and collusion.

I have been following the news on BBC about the planned strikes, the battering of Cameron, the widescale revolt within the Lib Dems by PM's who balked at things they had not signed up for but pushed on them by the Leadership, and, of course, the jolly good bashing the Archbishop gave David Cameron. The Tories have been forced to backpedal madly already, and with a bit of luck, a vote of No Confidence will soon follow, forcing new elections and booting the Tories out of office.

On this side of the pond, the GOP may possibly have overextended themselves. There is a lot of push-back here too. But it appears to be too little too late. The Supreme Court tossed out a Class-Action Suit filed on behalf of millions of low wage female employees of WalMart who have for years suffered under WalMart's discriminatory practices. My suggestion is that all those women strike and march on WalMart's HQ and chain themselves to the doors. Here's the address: 702 SW 8th St. in Bentonville, AR 72716.

WalMart is perhaps the single most economically destructive retailer in the US. Every local market WalMart penetrates immediately tailspins into decline. Their cheap slave labour produced products put local businesses out of business (I know, the Big Box Stores killed my business). And the low wages they provide their employees drives down wages in the local labour markets. WalMart needs to be destroyed, and then we should move on to some of the other Big Box stores.

But the larger picture is even worse than that. The Fascists have been holding up nearly every Federal Judge appointment by the current conservative administration. At last count, some media outlets have proffered that Fascist judges now hold 60% of the courts, with conservative, and progressive judges bringing up the rear.

And the fascists have a lock on the Supreme Court. There is only one chance of perhaps bringing the Supreme Court into something resembling balance, and that is to take one of them out (not with guns). The weakest link on the Supreme Court is the Criminal Clarence Thomas and his equally Criminal Wife. He needs to be forced to account for the kickbacks, bribes, political activism, and refusing to recuse himself from ruling on cases which involve his buddies.

It's about time that US citizens take a leaf from French and British workers and citizens. The only way to hold Corporations and their political and judicial lackeys to account, is to shut them down with massive work stoppages and strikes by labourers, and a general Credit Strike by homeowners and debtees.

GB

[Orwell]

Dear Visitors,

This is where the likes of Gandalfs Beard, Petty Tyrant, Eldorion and other Mad Debaters come to vent their spleen or show their intellect. Respectable Forumshire folk (like the Bankses) don't often show their faces here. (Too serious, you know! )

Yours,
Orwell

[Pettytyrant101]

Was that a tour bus just went by?

[Pettytyrant101]

There was an author on BBC Breakfast this morning, Adele Parks. She writes so called 'chick-lit'. And the term came up in the interview, was chick-lit books written specifically for women? The issue being raised because books written by men are not generally considered for men and are read by both sexes, whereas books written by women seemed to be for women and not men. And it was the attitude of the author which suprised me, she pointed out that the marketing and the cover design were all aimed at women, that it would be a brave man who sat and read her book on the tube with such a cover. But it didn't bother her.
When I write it never occurs to me to write just for men, I just write and hope others will enjoy the result whoever they are. So here's the question is it good for women's authors to address and target only other women, or is in fact detrimental to female authors as they they will always be pushed towards specific novels?

[Orwell]

I think it's a good idea to know what market a book is written for, just in case we read a book women don't think is suitable for us. I think it is important to respect a woman's wishes - always.

[Pettytyrant101]

I was trying for a serious debate on the issue Orwell!! Really i find it troubling that woman authors would choose and seem to be content to write just for themesleves. If it were being imposed from without femenists would rightly be up in arms about it.

[Eldorion]

I don't think that "chick-lit" as a term is intended to apply to all books written by women (though I'm not really familiar with what's going on). To me it sounds like the literary equivalent of a "chick flick", that is to say, a topic or genre that is stereotyped as appealing primarily to women. I know that there is a male equivalent with movies - stuff like Transformers and similar big loud action movies - though I can't actually think of a similar "guy-lit" genre for books. Maybe stereotypical manly men don't like to read -- who would've guessed?

[Pettytyrant101]

Eve nsomethinglike Transformers, which has a largely male appeal is not marketed exclusively at males. A female going to the cinema to see Transformers might not feel she is about to get a paricularly indepth evenings entertainmnet but nor do I think she would be made to feel uncomfortable by being there because she is a woman. Whereas these books, from content to cover design, are meant to appeal just to woman. That seems unfair and to narrow down womans writing- to almost say this is only good enough for other woman, but mens books are good enough for everyone.
If you take a novel like say George Orwells' 1984, its got a male protaginest but the driving factor of the story one way or another is love, its a love story. Why can a woman not write such a book, even if the main charcater is female, and still have it appeal across the board to both sexes? I find the concept of targeted books for different sexes odd. All marketing aims to appeall to its core market but this seems to be taking it too far to me, and I honestly cannot conceive of it happening with a male authored book.

[Eldorion]

Why can a woman not write such a book, even if the main charcater is female, and still have it appeal across the board to both sexes?

Women authors can write books that appeal to both sexes, so I don't understand what your point is. It sounds like you're saying that all female authors write so-called "chick lit".

[Saradoc]

"from content to cover design"

That's the reason- they are written for women, as it is thought that only women want to read them! Sure, a man can enjoy reading them. I've read many a chick novel- too many in fact. I've also mastered the art of talking like a female, well typing, so I'm seriously considering writhing my own chick-lit someday!

And so the content is nearly always about a women's life experiences, her relationships, he problems, or whatever! But it can be an interesting read for both sexes. But the way the whole genre has been marketed, like some rubbish fluffy girly thingy thing (not sure where I'm going with that) means that MEN don't want to read it, even though beyond that pink cover with a women clutching a bag, there could be a deep and moving novel. I agree with you!

[Saradoc]

Why can a woman not write such a book, even if the main charcater is female, and still have it appeal across the board to both sexes?

Women authors can write books that appeal to both sexes, so I don't understand what your point is. It sounds like you're saying that all female authors write so-called "chick lit".

I think he means that women who specifically write chick-lit do that, not all female authors in all genres...gotcha back dude...so hopefully he means that, or I'm going to look very silly!

[Pettytyrant101]

I'm saying there is a strong trend in publications to categories womans books in a way which does not happen with male authors, and worse the female authors who are producing this sort of book (a growing number, it is apprently the fastest growing sector) seem happy for this to be the case. Woman writing books just for woman. I think its a bad idea. And not just for female writing but for writing in general, the sex of the author should be irrelevant- it risks a future for female authorso f having to go back to using male psyeudonym to publish anything that itsnt directly about female issues.
Not all modern female authors write chick-lit, but a large proportion do, and its a growing number. And it seems looking at the shelves of my local bookstore that they are all books whose design says "Don't read if you are male". Their design entirely appeals to women and are alienating for the majority of men.

Indeed Saracdoc, I'm highlighting a worrying trend not an absolute.

[Eldorion]

I can see your point then, though I don't keep on top of the modern-day literature enough to offer any explanations, I'm afraid.

[Orwell]

I'm saying there is a strong trend in publications to categories womans books in a way which does not happen with male authors, and worse the female authors who are producing this sort of book (a growing number, it is apprently the fastest growing sector) seem happy for this to be the case. Woman writing books just for woman. I think its a bad idea. And not just for female writing but for writing in general, the sex of the author should be irrelevant- it risks a future for female authorso f having to go back to using male psyeudonym to publish anything that itsnt directly about female issues.
Not all modern female authors write chick-lit, but a large proportion do, and its a growing number. And it seems looking at the shelves of my local bookstore that they are all books whose design says "Don't read if you are male". Their design entirely appeals to women and are alienating for the majority of men.

Indeed Saracdoc, I'm highlighting a worrying trend not an absolute.

How exactly is women writing books they think might appeal especially to other women a "worrying" trend? I remember Mills and Boon and the like (and "The Womens Weekly", put out ostensibly for Women), still existing after many years. "Chic lit" has been around a long time, Petty. I like the fact that there may be stuff that appeals especially to women, and not men, kind of nice. I like to think women and men have differences, no matter what they are. The idea women might prefer one thing and men another (on certain things) I find kind of exciting. As I said, I like thinking men are different to women. And I don't feel 'excluded' by chic lit. I can read it if I want to, and I'm sure men do. Trying to comprehend women is an age old pursuit of men. Women are a mystery to me in some ways. Hope they always will be. And I hope also that the sex of a person will always be relevant.

[Pettytyrant101]

It's true there has always been books like the Mills and Boons serials whose appeal is to the female mind, but somehow this feels different. What I've been reading about it seems different. Mills and Boons is a marketing niche delibratley filled. If you write a Mills and Boons you know what market it is aimed at, there are rules and guidelines for authors writing them, but most importantly the authors are of both sexes. This is different because the authors are exclusively female.
It seems to have been a trend which came to the fore with the success of the Bridget Jones Diaries. The idea of the 'chic-flick' transmuted to the written page. But to me is seems too narrow a scope to put woman writers into, let alone for woman writers to choose to put themselves in such a small box, and I worry that the reason so many modern female authors write in the genre is because they cannot get published writng anything else, not because its all they want to say.
Having said that, the author I saw interviewed which sparked my interest, she did not seem to either mind her audicience was all female or wish to appeal to men in any way, quite the opoosite, she openly stated her latest book was just for women.
I can't think by way of comparison of a male author in an interview saying his book was just for men and he had no interest in women reading it. Seems wrong to me instinctively somehow.

[Orwell]

I suggest you buy her book and read it outside her lodgings. That'll show them you won't be excluded!

As to writing books that get published, maybe she's not the only one having to (possibly) compromise her ideals to get published (and paid).

[Gandalf's Beard]

Is it wrong for m.....er...GUYS, to like Regency Romances?



But seriously, I think "chick lit" is a modern marketing term invented by guys in suits who think that only chicks could possibly be interested in romances and family dramas (the prose equivalent of Soap Operas). The fact that some female authors are eager to pander to this "demographic" just adds fuel to this fire.

The fact is, literati of both...er...all genders are expected to be well versed in the classics, including those written by Jane Austen or the Bronte sisters, or otherwise be considered illiterate.

In this Consumerist era, Demographics are everything. Anything with lots of explosions, car chases, fight scenes, chicks in skimpy clothing, Space Ships and Giant Robots, is targeted at teenage boys (and by extension, all males in general).

Basically it all boils down to Lowest Common Denominator type thinking. Everything has to be pigeonholed. But this isn't always the case anymore. 20th century demographic rules were all about niche marketing. But this all started changing after Sigourney Weaver was cast as the lead in Alien. And now film-makers desperately try to craft movies that appeal to a wider set of demographics to boost box office. So now we have movies with explosions, car chases, fights, Space Ships etc...AND with females as leads and Romance Scenes.

I'm not sure that publishing houses have got the memo yet.

And I don't think most males have got the memo yet either after a century of propaganda targeted directly at them. Family Dramas, Romances, and all female casts, are given a wide berth by most males who use the term "Chick Flick" or "Chick Lit" as a pejorative. Good luck getting a guy to watch Sex in the City; to most men, if a guy enjoys Sex in the City, he must be gay.


GB

[Orwell]

Well said, GB!

I like a good fantasy with imagination, adventure and romance --- and I'm not gay --- well, I'm gay on my better days, and grey on my not so good days - otherwise I'm something of a dark presence.