doctorow — 2014-03-18T17:01:45-04:00 — #1
therationalpi — 2014-03-18T17:31:25-04:00 — #2
I remember being surprised when someone told me that Little Brother was a "boy book." Yes, its protagonist is a boy, but every protagonist has to have some kind of gender identity, and it's a weird world when we're only allowed to read fiction in which the lead character has the same gender identity as us.
This is exactly the problem with the Sunday paper's decision. Who's to decide what "excludes either sex?"
reverendloki — 2014-03-18T17:41:31-04:00 — #3
So, I take it they won't be reviewing any books on navigating Menopause then...
(Or dealing specifically with prostate/uterine/ovarian/testicular cancer, or how to be a good father or a good mother, or....)
Yes, I'm being a bit pedantic right now, but still. Maybe a policy against reviewing books that enforce antiquated gender inequalities would have been better.
heartfruit — 2014-03-18T18:22:05-04:00 — #4
I'd be more impressed if they wouldn't take advertising dollars from companies marketing gender differentiated toys.
eksrae — 2014-03-18T18:22:53-04:00 — #5
Is "Tank Girl" on the list?
l_mariachi — 2014-03-18T18:23:00-04:00 — #6
It’s hard to parse what they mean by “exclude.” Obviously boys can read Our Bodies, Ourselves and learn something about lady business, but it’s only indirectly relevant to them. Does the book “exclude” them by not including a chapter on the prostate? Does Matilda’s pink cover count as exclusionary marketing?
edgore — 2014-03-18T18:39:26-04:00 — #7
every protagonist has to have some kind of gender identity
This post is an affront to robotic protagonists everywhere.
euansmith — 2014-03-18T18:49:01-04:00 — #8
hubrissonic — 2014-03-18T19:45:33-04:00 — #9
prestonsturges — 2014-03-18T20:21:54-04:00 — #10
Or lesbian erotica, which is read exclusively by men.
boundegar — 2014-03-18T20:28:04-04:00 — #11
Maybe the same folks who are building the Great Wall? After all, they have figured out exactly what is appropriate and what is offensive.
vrplumber — 2014-03-18T20:50:00-04:00 — #12
erik_denning — 2014-03-18T23:55:17-04:00 — #13
We are all equal. We are all important. We are all winners. Everyone gets a trophy just for showing up. Differences should be downplayed rather than celebrated or honored.
ackpht — 2014-03-19T02:23:39-04:00 — #14
there is no credible evidence that boys and girls are born with innately different enthusiasms
I seriously doubt that.
retepslluerb — 2014-03-19T03:06:28-04:00 — #15
I hear ya! But that line of common sense was ignored ever since they forced the abandonment of racically segregated schools, which did nothing but celebrate difference.
unshaved_weirdo — 2014-03-19T03:38:03-04:00 — #16
You hear that whining noise? It's Enid Blyton rotating in her grave at 2000 RPM. ... but then,
Her books have been criticised as being elitist, sexist, racist, xenophobic and at odds with the more liberal environment emerging in contemporary post-war Britain
There you have it. shows what I know.
jeanbaptiste — 2014-03-19T03:53:18-04:00 — #17
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic/ironic, if you're trolling, or if you're being sincere. I'm honestly curious: which is it?
anton_p_gully — 2014-03-19T05:42:18-04:00 — #18
I'm fairly oblivious to this sort of thing but when I read "Little Brother" even I noticed that there wasn't a well-realised female character in the whole book, with the intermittent "love interest" feeling tacked on. To be fair later books, like "For The Win" and "Pirate Cinema" are a LOT better in this respect.
glenk — 2014-03-19T07:43:30-04:00 — #19
The policy allows them to spend fewer resources deciding which books to review and writing reviews.
Expect fewer reviews.
justin_r — 2014-03-19T09:07:56-04:00 — #20
So, the Dangerous Book for Boys and the Dangerous Book for Girls won't get reviewed then? Or is there a caveat for matched sets?
next page →