I have a question.

[Carol]

Rosabeatrice, I think you are making assumptions. This group is about discussing books and having a pleasant reading experience. It is not about politics, or feminism. Sometimes certain books we read will address these issues, but we try to maintain a polite conversation and avoid putting lables on others.

You are entitled to your opinions as are others. So I think we will all agree to disagree without making assumptions about what others are or are not. Thank you for stating your opinions, so allow others to have theirs also.

[Joan]

Thank you Carol for summing this up.

[Cateline]

I concur as well, Carol. Well, and diplomatically put.

[Charles]

Hmm. I find I cannot accept that literature (or any other art) is, or ought to be, subordinate to any ideology. Are we to declare de Kooning's Woman I (or for that matter, Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon)to be outside the pale? Whether you like it or not doesn't come into the question. If you are to be literate in art you must know it. Are we to impoverish the history of film documentary by banishing Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will because of its distasteful origins and purpose? You can choose to read or not read whatever you like for whatever reasons, but you cannot claim any defensible critical position on that basis. Can you imagine the Standard Model in physics being rejected by someone because they didn't like particles that spin the wrong way? The place for ideology is politics and religion, not art.

Incidentally, on the subject of gender solidarity, I'm a little pained by some of the claims made concerning men's fiction, writing, and reading tastes. Why, for example, is sex not a relationship? Why are Paretsky and Vargas not mentioned in remarks on the supposed preference of men for action and violence, and Henry James ignored in talk of relationships? Why is Hemingway excoriated for his manliness and Martha Gellhorn's portrait of him in Travels With Myself and Another overlooked? I don't want to be marginalized and relegated to the locker room of male bonding.

[Charles]

In Rosabeatrice's original post she said that When I read men, I get the impression of one good (or bad) book by one individual and no sense of connection with other male writers. If it were so, is this a bad thing? Men having an intimate conversation typically do not look at each other, but stand or sit side by side. Does the unfeminine lack of eye contact mean it's not intimate? Or only that women don't notice what's going on?

May I ask that this polarizing discussion be put to rest, or else refounded on a different basis?

[Theresa]

This is actually one of the more interesting discussions I've seen on the board in quite a while. Some meat, even disputatious meat, is always better than polite chit-chat, in my opinion. And the Supreme Court showed us just today why feminism is still relevant.

Back to the main topic, there are plenty of male writers that I have no trouble identifying with. Michael Ondaatje. Turgenev. Haruki Murakami. To name just a few. But it is probably easier for me to feel a connection with a woman writer even if she lacks the elements these male writers have that draw me to them (whatever they may be - some kind of philosophical affinity maybe?)

[Ann D]

To clarify some remarks I made earlier, I consider myself a feminist. I came of age when women's lib was beginning and was a beneficiary of it in getting a job that trained me to be a programmer. I do not think everything is hunky dory now in the field of women's rights, although I am also aware of the progress that has been made.

However ---

When it comes to literature, I am not willing to judge books through the prism of female rights or bonding. I want to judge books on their own merits. Ideology clouds that process.

As Charles pointed out, lots of male and female writers do not fit the gender stereotype. Let's just look at the individual works themselves.
And I agree with Carol. This is a place for discussing literature, not politics.

[Cateline]

While this discussion is, in a way, interesting I find that it is more.....potentially polarizing. That is something I frequent this group to avoid. I've seen enough of that on certain others.