Chat thread - come chat, rant, or celebrate, here!

DH and I just had this conversation! I think my objection is not that "chick-lit" is about women's lives. It is that I've picked badly written ones - ones that conforms to all the stereotyping and do not question anything. There are plenty of bad crime novels out there (I love detective novels) but the good ones make you question the issues of justice and human relationship. Good "chick-lit" should tell make you see things you haven't seen before too. Sushi for beginners does not question anything, and makes light of things like depression, etc etc etc. I'll try the other recommendations!

And so to bed. (One day I'm bloody going to read Pepys.)

Sorry, I like Marian Keyes. But then I like chicklit.

I have a bit of an issue with how it gets a rep for being dumbed-down - it's perfectly socially acceptable to read crime, or fantasy or sci-fi, all of which can be pretty formulaic, but chick lit is beyond the pale.

TBF I don't remember Sushi for Beginners so it may not have been great, but I started off with Watermelon which I enjoyed.

Carol Shields' books got categorized as chick lit when she started writing, IIRC - she is fantastic and extremely well regarded nowadays, but I got into chick lit because I like reading about women's lives, so for me they work well.

I've got The Mystery of Mercy Close by Marian Keyes and The Returned (or something) by Victoria Hislop. Should I read them?

The Gift is a load of old shite, though.

The Book Group (I think, might be the book club or the reading group) by Elizabeth Noble is decent chick lit - helped by the fact most characters are in relationships that are changing rather than the falling in love bit.

I've read Bridget Jones' diary, which I enjoyed but cannot identify with (apart from the P&P plot). Apart from that I haven't read any of these shiny books. Thought I should educate myself. Mistake.

Oh god, never come across any decent chic lit. Not read much since I really started getting into feminism about 5 years ago though. It's hideous mostly isn't it.

Can we chat again?

I've just read Marian Keynes' Sushi for Beginners and felt that I have not been wrong to judge books by their covers. Tell me chick lit gets better than this! Just to prove myself wrong I went and read Cecilia Ahern's The Gift. And that's awful too. Now I have one more Marian Keynes and one more nondescript similar-looking book on the pile (don't know what possessed me to borrow them - I think I'm just trying to read something different but that may just be a great mistake). Tell me a feminist-friendly chick-lit please!

But none of this is quite as awful as Tami Hoag's Still Water. Whatever you do, don't read it.

Thanks all. I'm also inclined to think that for small children willy-waving is to do with toilets and wees and poos rather than sexual harassment. I was a bit disheartened to see people sexualising children's acts and reacting accordingly. I think the thing is not to react and later have a quiet word about public/private etc. (too cowardly to participate in an AIBU thread with controversial view but want to seek clarification - someone once posted that to judge what MN is like by AIBU is to judge how nice fish is by a tank of sharks and I think I concur. )

Hmm, I think willy shaking at that age as an attention seeking thing is more determined by toileting being private than anything else

Somehow I've totally missed this thread. Anyone had any successes (or teaspoons as Melissa from Shakesville calls them) lately?

Some dick walked past me, looked me up and down and said "Very nice" this morning as I was going to work. So pleased he felt like he was in a position to assess my success at looking fuckable when I was listening to the radio and generally minding my own business.

I don't know that it has to be a threat per se; but as SmallClanger says it's a demand for attention.

Is it any worse as an attention seeking behaviour than say, spitting? Intinsically I'd say not, but the small boy has clearly already learnt that willy shaking is provocative behaviour in a way which is different from other gross behaviour, and he has probably learnt this from parents/siblings/peers. So he is deliberately performing an act which he has already learnt is taboo in some way. So it is worse, but only because of the cultural norm associated with that behaviour.

I think it comes down to intention. Like Woodhead said, little children running round with no clothes on is completely different to a single boy waving his genitals at a group of clothed girls, of which he is not part.

It's demanding their attention and almost "territory marking" behaviour that we've been talking about on the rant thread. Almost like practice for all those million other distracting and vaguely offensive things adult men do to women minding their own business and not paying sufficient attention to them.

Is it because when a man exposes his genital to a woman there are implicit threats of further violence?

For little children is a "look at my willy" style taunting different from other types of taunting (not sure what, like "look how far I can spit" or something equally disgusting??) Or is it only different because we read other things into it? Or is it really different?

Lord Cooper that's an interesting thought on exposing oneself. Where is the boundary between nudity and exposure?

I know I wouldn't worry about nudist beaches, or the naked rambler etc, as they are simply wandering about unclothed, rather than "exposing themselves". Certainly for children, little children running about unclothed wouldn't worry me, but a little boy deliberately taunting a little girl with his genitals would.

Exposure seems to imply some sort of deliberate act, and as you suggest some sort of power play, which is different from simple nudity.

I'm a bit at a psychiatrist (what's a gender psychiatrist?) not thinking through the gender issue. Just goes to show (something) ...

I'm less inclined to "go along" with things these days. I remember when I was young and stubborn all my elders and betters told me to "go along and don't be so troublesome", that "when you grow up you'd understand" but I think I'm even more stubborn now. Old and stubborn. And have learned more swear words more expressive now.

I'm pleased you wore a top.

Even Rupert Murdoch is starting to realise that topless is "so last century"

Good for you. It must be very hard not to play along to smooth the path to where you want to be.

Kim - I know that this is a highly complex and personal area. But it must be very strange to come up against stereotypes about what it means to be female in that context. Do you find yourself battling that there are lots of ways to 'feel like a woman' and it doesn't necessarily mean X or Y?

No reply from JL. I've just filled in another feedback form to complain.

And how is everyone enjoying the summer?

I wanted to have a chat about the question of exposing bodies. I'm afraid this is about a thread - someone objected to a little boy apparently exposing his willy and apparently teasing a little girl. It got me thinking about why it's so bad. A man exposing his genitals to a woman is playing some sort of power game, no? It is the patriarchy again, is it not? How about a woman exposing her genitals to a man? How about children? Sorry I'm not being very coherent - which is why I didn't want to start a thread and get pounced on ... >

Did JL ever answer LordCooper?

I don't think it is bad form at all, it's a thought provoking thread. I'm all for that.