I'm currently reading Secret Life of Bees which is a totally women centered novel, written by a woman. But I'm liking it because of the gripping story and fluent narration.
So, good books regardless of the theme and the plot, do find their way.

Kandice wrote: "Colleen McCulloughis one of my all time favorites, and even though The Thorn Birds is THE essential romance, most of what she writes is not. I would bet, if her author nam..."

I disagree that men do not read her stuff because she's a Colleen rather than a "C." Lovers of historical fiction know that her "Rome" series is the best ever done on that era. Makes Conn Igguldon's series on Rome read like Juvenile books.

I think historical fiction, Romance novels excepted, is read by Historical Fiction fans regardless of the author's sex.

Becky wrote: "Good! That means that you are a card-carrying member of POFP, Thomma. ;)"

hehe! That's great to know. *grin*!

Good! That means that you are a card-carrying member of POFP, Thomma. ;)

Becky wrote: "I prefer "Person Of The Feminine Persuasion". Do not forget the capitalization. O_o"

LOL! I like that. :)

I am a POFP an proud of it!

POFP is fine. If you MUST abbreviate.

A POFTFP? or POFFP?

I prefer "Person Of The Feminine Persuasion". Do not forget the capitalization. O_o

My father is not a rooster, but, having said that, I don't mind being called a chick. I prefer girl, but...

Yes, I see them. And a pretty blue they are too. :D

*eyes*

But, Tweety IS a chick. ;)

I don't see anything offensive in being called a chick, though saying that I wouldn't like it if I was.

But chick lit said out loud sounds... like something else.

Colleen McCulloughis one of my all time favorites, and even though The Thorn Birds is THE essential romance, most of what she writes is not. I would bet, if her author name on the spine was C. McCullough, instead of Colleen, a lot more men would read her.

oooh "Chick Lit" is an inflamatory word. Who knew?
Follow the link guys check it out.

I feel like a kid on the school ground watching other kids fight...

That's the great thing about this site- The variety of people you can interact with.

I'm 45 and I've been talking to people in Junior High and also to people in the University world and to authors and to a whole lot of people in between...
I love it.

It tend toward first person female character books which lends itself very much to a female writer.
I hadn't thought about it until Ed mentioned it- I haven't read too many histories- but the ones I can think of off the top of my head were all written by men. I did read The Thorn Birds
but also read the entire bicential series by John Jakes and a few others of his before I quit. So I think he kind of cancels out Colleen McCullough
Mysteries may be a male dominated field- I'm not sure- but I gravitate toward the women of that genre.
Every single Psychology/Self-help book I ever read and this is kind of strange but I mean EVER read was written by a man. I am a great fan of M Scott Peck And I've had- what's the literary equivalent of drive-by? I've had read-by- brief experiences with Dr. Phil, Wayne Dyer, Rick Warren (don't waste your money) and Gary Zukav

I'm going to follow that link to the Constant Reader page and see what it is people can actually get hot about. Reading preference are reading preferences they can be interesting but I don't see them causing an emotional debate... Curious-

Ed: yes, Colleen McCullough is wonderful. The Thorn Birds is one of my all-time favorite books.

I was struck at some point that the title of this discussion is "Men vs. Women" not "Men or Women".

There has been an ongoing discussion in the Constant Reader group trying to define "Chick Lit": http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1457... Got a little heated. If you are a member check it out.

I have no data to back it up but I think there are more male authors than female authors if you take out so-called "Romance Novels", which none of my friends, male or female, read.

In my case, I like hard-boiled mystery thrillers and spy stories most of which are authored by men. But I do read J.A. Jance, Janet Evanovich, etc. Also my non-fiction reading is mostly in History that also has a male dominated author list.

Historical Fiction seems to be about 50-50 male-female and one of my absolute favorites is Colleen McCullough.

I do not often think about the sex of an author while I'm reading a book unless it's a psychology offering. I guess I just have found that I read more books written by men than women.

Must be a genetic thing. (Grin)

Christina wrote: "I apologize if this has been posted previously, but I was wondering what everyone had to say about men's tendencies to not read books by women?

Any guys here that can lend thei..."

Wow, interesting topic. Thinking about my favorite writers, I'd say my list is populated equally by men and women. Probably right around 50-50, seriously. But from my anecdotal experience, more women read books written by men than the other way around. And I don't know why that is. Perhaps it's a feeling some men have that they can't relate to a story written by a woman. And to my mind, that's a shame.

I relate to people -- writers, readers, whomever -- as individuals, and if an individual has something interesting to say or a good story to tell, I'm all ears (or all eyes, in the case of a book), regardless of his/her personal plumbing or any other physical characteristic. ;)

BTW off the subject some...
I tend to like female singers better too.
I know it's been written about that female country and western singers have in the past had a harder time than men.
It used to be a man's business. Writing also was once a man's business. Haven't we heard it said Anonymous was a woman?
Things haven't completely equalled out. Women still earn less than men in most career fields.
And the one that really p*sses me off...
Women get paid less in social security benefits.
I retired from the USAF. I got paid the same as men for doing the same job- but when I get to the same age- I'm screwed. He'll get a bigger check than me.

Christina wrote: "I apologize if this has been posted previously, but I was wondering what everyone had to say about men's tendancies to not read books by women?

Any guys here that can lend their opinion to this?..."

I don't know if men in general tend to lean toward male writing.
But, I know that I'm a woman and I tend toward female writers. The only male writer I've been ga-ga over recently was James Patterson
while there have been a slew of female authors I can't get enough of. I honestly can't say where this preference stems from.
It's not like I intentionally shy away from male authors. There are plenty of male authors I like. But when I review my reading preferences, it just happens that there are many more women on the list than men.
Since I don't subject my reading to affirmative action or equal oppurtunity, I don't worry about it too much. But I have noticed it and found it curious.

Kandice wrote: "Thank you Sowmya, that's exactly what I was trying to say:)"

You are welcome!

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Obviously extreme, and didn't even begin to provoke the thinking I'd hoped. Let me just say, there is no way you can include - whether it be by race, gender, national origin, or philosophical idea ..."

I would say that you didn't provoke thinking but rather reaction. If you should, in the future, wish to provoke thinking, I suggest you start with an open-ended question like, "What is racism?" or "How does racism play out in the media?"

I think it's the Constant Reader group on GR that has a thread called "I need to rant" in which people feel free to attack or gripe about anything they wish. I tried unsuccessfully to find your orignal post so I don't know what you said exactly but I suspect it was more of a position statement than an invitation to discuss.

BTW, that's fine and your right but don't expect open-ended thought provoking responses from a controversial statement. Expect what you got, reactions, including mine.

Somehow, I don't see you bowing out and that's an opinion, not a fact.

Here is the good news...in my opinion, none of us on this site is racist. I think this is one of the best and most thought-provoking groups I have been a part of. I appreciate the discussion to help me think of differing opinions and how sometimes some people may perceive something I do differently than I ever meant. From my viewpoint, thanks for the discussion.

Ladies and gentlemen, shall we begin the applause?

Obviously extreme, and didn't even begin to provoke the thinking I'd hoped. Let me just say, there is no way you can include - whether it be by race, gender, national origin, or philosophical idea (religion, education are but two examples) - without excluding. And now, I'm sure you'll all thank me, I'll bow out.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Let me play devil's advocate on this.

If someone were to donate to a white supremacist group because they needed food, would that be racist?"


With all due respect Elizabeth I think you played devil’s advocate enough by stating that Oprah is a racist.

In answer to your question I believe that yes someone who donates to a white supremacist group can be considered racist. Not because the group is white but because of what the group stands for. I think a group’s cause is more important than the make up of the group. Oprah’s charities do not promote racism, closed mindedness, or ignorance in any way. Unlike a white supremacist group who not only believes in white power, but also believes they are superior to other races and have a history of spreading oppression and harm to other races. Oprah’s charities are designed to promote necessities and education to people in need no matter what color, race or nationality. If you look at her Angel Network you will see that this particular charity alone has extended services across North America, Africa, and Asia. She has also donated too and encourages people to give to other charities such as Women for Women International and Heifer International both of which help people all across the globe. Sorry, but I’ve never heard of a white supremacist group helping others in need besides those of their own race and if I’m correct then that would fit into your definition of racism.

Thank you Sowmya, that's exactly what I was trying to say:)

Kandice wrote: " I think the HUMAN RACE as a whole finds it easier to help those we identify with in some way. If that identifier is race, so be it. If it's religion, common interest, belief, age, whatever demog..."

I believe that too. 'Excluding' rather than 'including' is the basis of racism.

saranicole wrote: "I would hate being famous. How awful would it be to have all of your flaws and mistakes displayed before the whole world? I'm glad that when I do something stupid--something that, in retrospect, ..."

I learned that from following the Princess Diana story.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Let me play devil's advocate on this.

If someone were to donate to a white supremacist group because they needed food, would that be racist?"

No, it would be stupid!

Let me play devil's advocate on this.

If someone were to donate to a white supremacist group because they needed food, would that be racist?

I think the HUMAN RACE as a whole finds it easier to help those we identify with in some way. If that identifier is race, so be it. If it's religion, common interest, belief, age, whatever demographic, if we are touched at the heart, we may be moved to give.

I don't thing helping someone based on whatever criteria moves us to help is in any way saying we are superior, or them inferior to us. If that were the case, help would be futile. I think helping based on race, is more a testament that we believe, with a little help from bad circumstances, (not race fate) they CAN rise above those circumstances.

It's more a testament to your belief in a race than your pity, hatred or hope of oppression.

Becky wrote: "Helping others is never a bad thing.

and

Giving help to those in need should never be discouraged for fear of offending someone.
"

My problem with helping others is not the helping, of course. I think there are people who go out of their way to help people on the basis of race, which should be obvious is where I have the problem. Why on the basis of race? Is it because we think people of that race are inferior and unable to help themselves? People may not make this conscious thought, but what other reason could there be? If they are thought unable to help themselves, then the obvious is that others are somehow superior, based on race. No race is superior to another.

Defining "need" may be an area where well-meaning people can disagree heartily. There are many more needs than most of us could learn about in a lifetime, yet alone address. poverty, education, disease - the top three for most of us, which just skims the surface.

Oh, excuse me Elizabeth, I thought that you thanked Ed for clarifying and expanding on your meaning with that statement. I must have misinterpreted.

We disagree on what racism is, that's all. I see it as a conscious choice to do harm to members of a race that members of another race feel is inferior. You see it differently. If you say that you see actions as racist based on your own ideas of what racism is, I can't argue with that. That's your opinion.

I actually agree with you that people should be mindful of others. We can agree on that. However, I draw the line at presuming to know the intentions of those I don't know based on their actions, and that is the problem that I have with stating that Oprah is racist. You do not know who or what she IS. Not even her best friend, or her mother, or her shrink, if she has one, knows that. Only Oprah does.

You also presume to have me upset. You don't. I'm calmly disagreeing with you. I have not been disrespectful or condescending, I've simply stated my opinions based on what I understood yours to have been.

However, your ideas are harmful because you make helping people in need out to be something shameful because of perceived preferential treatment of a particular group of people. Helping others is never a bad thing. But we have to choose our battles. Everyone cannot be included in everything.

Giving help to those in need should never be discouraged for fear of offending someone.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "April wrote: "Suri, the daughter of TomKat, is famous, she's three, so it's not by choice. Go to perezhilton.com, I guarentee you will see a picture of her. Also I think magazines like People pay t..."

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes

April wrote: "Suri, the daughter of TomKat, is famous, she's three, so it's not by choice. Go to perezhilton.com, I guarentee you will see a picture of her. Also I think magazines like People pay tons of money f..."

Who is TomKat?

Fiona wrote: "I guess if you're royalty you're kinda born pretty much to it like it or not. Especially if you're in direct line to succession. "

You're right, Fiona. It's pretty hard for British royalty to move around without hundreds of cameras noting their every nose wipe. But most celebrities can control the exposure. They just don't.

Becky wrote: "I don't really understand you, Elizabeth. You make statements that make you seem so unforgiving and exacting that it seems nobody on Earth can meet your expectations.

You've redefined racism, a..."


Oh, for pete's sake, Becky. Just being aware other races exist doesn't make you a racist. I never said such a thing, and in fact, never intimated such. Targeting a particular race, even if (especially?) for good, thereby excluding others, is what racism is all about. It doesn't have to be for the purpose of hurting those excluded. We need to be mindful of what we're doing. If I go out and help white kids, someone is bound to call me a racist. I may (or may not) be a racist by having done so, but most people of color will call me one regardless. This is the biggest double standard I've ever seen and alot of hooey. We all just need to be mindful that when a person of color does the same thing as a white person, it is the same racism. If you think not, if you think that the non-whites among us need more help than whites, that is about as racist as a person can get.

You're getting way too worked up, Becky. My ideas can't hurt you, anymore than Oprah can hurt me.

Suri, the daughter of TomKat, is famous, she's three, so it's not by choice. Go to perezhilton.com, I guarentee you will see a picture of her. Also I think magazines like People pay tons of money for celeb baby pics, and sometimes, that money does go to a good cause, I read Angelina Jolie donated her baby pic money to charity.
This is definately not the 1970s, with the advent of hyper-technology, it's as though those who are talented, like SOME celebrities aren't allowed to be private citizens, as there is always some camera in their face.
Alfonso Riveria, the guy who played Carlton on the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air recently gave a lecture at my school, and he talked about Will Smith and how the paparazzi gossip magazines have a field day with Will. He said something along the lines of yes, Will chose fame, but his children didn't, and then something about how the cameras never leave you alone. Oh and mentioned how Will is not a scientologist, but how the gossip magazines made him seem that way because they make their money doing things like that.

Oh and on-topic, I read whatever book sounds good. I don't really look much at gender of the author while reading. I am more inclined to enjoy a book, however, if the main character is female. I can relate better. Although, there have been many beloved books where the main character is a male.

The new royalty are the children of Hollywood celebrities. I think it was Tom Cruise and his wife's baby or maybe it was Bradgelina, what ever. It was photographed for millions of dollars. What a waste. What stupidity.

I participated in a training event, years ago, in which we were made to get up on the stage in front of hundreds of people and act the total ass. A good lesson. It didn't hurt at all.

My guess is, whatever their motives, celebrities learn to not take it personally. Who was it that said, "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right"?

I don't really understand you, Elizabeth. You make statements that make you seem so unforgiving and exacting that it seems nobody on Earth can meet your expectations.

You've redefined racism, as Ed mentioned, so that everyone who is aware that other races exist is a racist. Does being aware of gender also make one a sexist?

You then contradict yourself and say that awareness is key, but by your own definition, that will cause people to become what you seek to reject. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. To eliminate racism we need to be aware of it, yet to be aware of racism we become racists.

That seems to be a very hopeless outlook. How is it possible to move toward a prejudice-free world if simply being aware of prejudice -even to reject it- means that we are ourselves prejudiced?

It seems that you wish for the world to live in ignorance of all differences between people, and that is not a world I would want to live in. I can love and accept others for their difference from me, but I would not wish them to be devoid of them.

I guess if you're royalty you're kinda born pretty much to it like it or not. Especially if you're in direct line to succession.

I don't see how you can be born much more famous than Caroline Kennedy, who didn't have much trouble staying out of the limelight until she decided to make herself known. Did you have another in mind?

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I think they volunteered for the fame bit. "

Not if they were literally born famous.

I think they volunteered for the fame bit.

It's bad enough thinking my coworkers might be judging me... I wouldn't want people who I've never met judging me....

You're right Sara, it would be terrible to have people I don't know and have never met judging my every move. It's such a shame when people can't do something good without that decision being dissected and analyzed for selfish motives. I don't just mean Oprah, I mean people like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and Madonna. It's apparently true what they say, although I wish it wasn't: No good deed goes unpunished.

I would hate being famous. How awful would it be to have all of your flaws and mistakes displayed before the whole world? I'm glad that when I do something stupid--something that, in retrospect, I would never do again--only a few people will ever know about it.

Poor famous people! It must REALLY suck sometimes!