Kelly's comments (member since Jul 20, 2008)

Kelly's comments from the SciFi and Fantasy Book Club group.

Kendal wrote: "Once in elementary school I scored mentally handicapped on a standardized test because I rushed through the answers without even reading the questions in order to finish quickly so I could read the..."
I actually laughed out loud.

Kernos wrote: "No I don't assume that at all and take umbrage at others deciding what I assume..."

Because that's what you said: feminism is about females being concerned with their rights: "underscores much that is negative about the feminist movement: that only females have equality concerns related to their gender." The implication is very clear that feminism assumes that only women have concerns about their gender and are not concerned with men's issues. Which is ludicrous as I pointed out. However, the term "men's rights" is as offensive as "white rights." Those in power are not downtrodden. They have issues but it's not the same.

Random said: "how can there be equality when there is no difference to begin with?" By making a society of people who are the same, we are forced to examine our own ideas of gender which is inherently feminist.

I think I should just let Ben fight my battles from now on because he is so much better at stating what I am trying to say. Thank you Ben!

Kernos wrote: "I consider the idea that gender equality, gender investigation etc is inherently feminist to be a radical statement and underscores much that is negative about the feminist movement: that only fema..."

Exactly what feminism is about. You assume I mean only females are feminists. I already said the name is unfortunate and does not accurately describe what it is. I said feminism is concerned that BOTH genders are equal meaning men get to be nurses and women get to be doctors. Men get to be stay-at-home moms and women get to be the breadwinners.

Thank you Sarah and Brooke.

Random,

I think that's a great example. I'm not sure how it's arguing with me. I would add that the humans can also perform a typical Anaral role without a problem. Absolutely a feminist way of thinking in my mind and by the definition as Sarah pointed out.

Thanks, Sarah.

There are really three genders in the book, I think. The androgynous state people are in most of the time, then during the sexual state, they become either female or male. It's the ultimate example of where the two sexes are equal because the rest of the time, they are all the same. I did say this book is different but the egalitarian look at gender, the investigation of gender, as Sarah Pi says, is inheritantly feminist in my opinion. I do not think saying this book is feminist is absurd at all.

There is such a thing as masculism, part of the "men's right's" movement. Since I wasn't being absurd, I didn't want to assume you were.

Feminism was a response to the accepted world order where men were superior and women inferior. It sought to even the playing field, to say that men and women were equal. Just because the root of feminism means women, doesn't mean "women-centric." (It's rather an unfortunate choice.) It means, "women are equal." "Masculism" is as absurd as talking about equal rights for whites--it is already the status quo as men and whites are the ones in power. (That is not to say that I don't believe men have issues and difficulties that women don't... I do think men face some of the same difficulties now that women began dealing with 30 years ago: how do I be strong and sensitive at the same time? But this is solely talking about human rights.)

So a story that discusses gender issues in a way that makes looks at both genders equally is, by definition, feminist. Now this book is different in that it's talking about a third gender, but I think it fits the bill.

I was pleasantly surprised by My Hero. Only the first couple of seasons are available here on DVD though (at least the last time I checked).

I'll second The Lightning Thief.

Random, I'm curious what your definition of "feminist" is. I think there's a huge difference between radical feminism and feminism. If the genders in a book are not unequal, then I think of the book as being feminist. By just examining questions of gender in an open and intelligent way, this book is feminist in my opinion.

I felt so-so about it, too (although I LOVED To Say Nothing of the Dog). I think Pratchett's other work is funnier. I've never enjoyed Gaiman as much as I think I should.

I watched a bunch of QI on YouTube last night. Very funny, although it made me feel really stupid. Not just with the obvious answers being wrong but the other factoids floating around, the people named, etc. I liked it a lot.

I saw both the movie and the miniseries before reading the book which ruined the book for me. I can't get them out of my head and thus can't get into the book, which is unfortunate because I think I would have liked the book. So I think reading the book first is imperative.

I loved the movie but I was a teenager with a huge crush on Kyle MacLachlan, bad hair and all. I'd probably hate it now. The first miniseries was pretty good. The sets were mostly fabulous but the bad blue-screens were irritating. I liked the casting of Jessica a lot and the young nephew, the jerk he fights, can't remember his name.

I haven't seen the sequel because I keep hoping I'll get through Dune and then able to read the other book first.

I love Father Ted, although it's Irish (and the producers got VERY offended when they were lumped in with the British) and Sean of the Dead. I've added Spaced to my Netflix queue. What is QI?

I love to sew and sew a lot and I pay attention when I saw and I STILL have injured myself with my sewing machine. Maybe I'm just really uncoordinated with power tools.

I love Black Books, it's one of my favorite shows of all time. I, too, love the dark Brit humor (although Moran is Irish) like Blackadder, Red Dwarf, and AbFab. I'm not a huge fan of Monty Python and I never thought Fawlty Towers was very funny. Benny Hill is another realm altogether: mostly slapstick visual comedy and potty humor. I can give that a miss.

But I have to say I didn't enjoy Good Omens that much. I love Pratchett usually, I often laugh out loud when reading about Death, but this just didn't do it for me. I wonder if I would have appreciated it more if I had been listening to it. I'm not sure since I usually can hear the accents and inflection in my head quite well. But it's certainly possible.

Wow, did she understand it?

Jade, if you can sew and read, you are more coordinated than I am and I can walk and read.

Thank you, Chris, for those suggestions. But I don't think they are the same. They are titles defining the person's own role as a husband. The Time Traveler's Wife or the Astronaut's Wife, is defining a woman based on the *job* or *role* of her husband. "An Ideal Wife" wouldn't bother me because it's about her being a wife, not that she's defined by his job. I'd like to see "the Ambassador's Husband" or "The Screenwriter's Husband." That would be comparable to me.

As for not reading a book because of it's title, I admit it's silly in some ways but with hundreds of books on my to-read list, I have to be arbitrary at some point. We all are when we glance at covers that don't sound appealing or genres we don't tend to read, etc. And there's been such a spate of them recently it's my own personal stand. Of course, if I find out more about it and it sounds really appealing and I haven't something else I'd rather read, I wouldn't sit there contemplating my navel rather than read it. I'm just not going out of my way to read it. Of course, I am aware the author probably didn't have anything to do with the title and my pathetic act of resistance will accomplish nothing. It just makes me feel better.

Jon, good for you. In my profession I, too, was often mistaken for male because of my last name. It helped that for years another person (a male) in the building had the same name first and last name as I minus 3 letters.

Henrik,
Nowadays most women in the US do use their own first and last name with "Mrs." and aren't aware of the formal/official way to use it but in the 50's a woman was definitely Mr. and Mrs. John L. Smith or whatever here.

Lara,

Exactly!

I am currently boycotting any book whose title is about a woman as defined by her relationship to a man (the blah blahs' wife, the blah blahs' daughter). Do you ever hear the blah blah's husband? Sorry. It's just my latest pet peeve.

Lianna:

This was nothing like most of his books which are FAR better and much more complex.

Doesn't everyone read while walking? (Note to self: examine all habits to find out which people think are odd...)

Fantasymagazine wrote: "This book reminded a lot of TFW the way the protagonist is constantly being thrust into futures that he doesn't fit into. "

I forgot about that aspect of TFW. I thought it was a very powerful part of that book. Thanks for the reminder.