Does the Chick Lit Label Hurt Female Writers?

I was surfing the internet hoping to find some material to work on for my expository paper on 'chick literature' and I came across this youtube clip featuring two female authors and their discussion on the genre in general.

There are a few interesting points to be raised for discussion in this clip and most of it has to do with the author on the far left (as you probably would have noticed from her responses in the clip). I personally felt that the author on the left was very hypocritical and condescending in the way she views the genre (even though she claims that it is not necessarily a bad thing to have this particular genre called 'chick lit'. I will discuss a few reasons why I arrived at this conclusion below.

Notice her initial usage of the word 'marketing' at 0:46 which she quickly corrected to 'demand' (but reverted back to marketing later on in the dialogue). When she used the word marketing, a few thoughts immediately came into my mind. The first and perhaps most important one would be that these particular books have to be packaged in a certain 'ideal' way in order to appeal to the particular masses. The underlying assumption is that men and women like to read different things because they are inherently different. Preconceptions about the type of content women like to read but men avoid then creeps into the picture, reinforcing gender stereotypes which are arguably constructed in the first place. Particularly, her discussion on how there exist the general idea that chick lit is of a lesser genre yet "millions of women love to read about shoes and dating and men" seemed hypocritical as she herself gave the impression that she was leaning towards the former.

This impression was confirmed later when she talks about how there seems to be 'shame' associated with chick lit and she 'wonders' who or what is generating this shame. She then made a comment about how it cannot be men who are doing it as they are not reading chick lit or not even thinking about chick lit. In essence, it has to be women who are propagating such thoughts as only women would read about things as frivolous as shoes and dating and men (remember the works on power relations pertaining to writing we read earlier?). The most interesting point came at 4:08-4:10 when she reacted very negatively to the question of whether she would classify her work as chick lit. She claimed that writers should not classify themselves as specialists of certain genre as it would restrict the scope of their work but it sounded more like an attempt to rescue herself. Then she once again made the comment that in order for the books to sell, they have to be packaged in certain ways and how that is done is really up to the publishers.

It is interesting that even a female author who writes books classified as 'chick lit' would react so negatively to the classification. Even though throughout the dialogue she tried to sound neutral or even supportive of the growth of this genre, the vibes she gave off were very negative indeed if we were to scrutinize the things she said. I would have expected a male author writing books belonging to a more 'masculine' genre to have this kind of reaction but her?? I am puzzled indeed!

Tootsie!

We caught the film "Tootsie" on Tuesday during class and to say it was 'interesting' would be an understatement. The film basically portrays an aspiring actor, Michael who displayed typical masculine traits in the beginning. He was hot-tempered, rash and always ready to stand up to any challenges. These traits masked his talents for acting and producers avoided hiring him for any roles as he was too 'confrontational'. However, when he decided to turn himself into a woman (Dorothy) to audition for a role, he found immediate success. People found his 'masculinity' as a woman refreshing and he quickly became somewhat of a cult idol for women all over. Women, through Dorothy and her willingness to stand up to chauvinistic males, began to learn that they too deserve to be treated as equals to men. Nonetheless, he quickly realised that he has fallen in love with one of his colleagues and had to revert back to his 'manhood' in order to be with her.

There were a few things that particularly stood up in the film for me. One was the fact that it took a man masquerading as a woman, to literally have the 'balls' to tell women all over what exactly it is they need and want. Is this then hinting at the fact that in order for women to be equal to men in a patriarchal society, they need to display masculine qualities? Related to this would be our previous discussions on gender roles and power relations. If we were to follow the above argument that masculinity is needed for equality for men and women, a corollary would be that power is tied to masculinity? Secondly, I found it interesting that not one but two (and maybe even three) men fell for the super masculine Dorothy, with one even wanting to marry him/her! Considering a patriarchal society where men (or masculinity) rules, why were the men in the film portrayed as willing to 'step down' to be on an equal footing with Dorothy? Lastly, Dorothy had to revert back to his life as Michael eventually in order to woo the woman of his dreams. The message I got was that even though we might be able to cross over into the 'realm' of the other gender (by cross-dressing, acting feminine etc much like how Michael became Dorothy), we eventually have to go back to who we were in order for society to work properly. Does this mean that certain gender roles are 'fixed' and cannot be achieved by the opposite gender no matter what they do?

Just some thoughts that I had after thinking about some of the going-ons in the film. What are your thoughts on it? :)

What's at the bottom...?

Recently, we have had a lot of discussion on gender stereotypes and how these were propagated and reinforced through various means common to our daily lives. These include the media, our own upbringing, through religion, educational establishments and believe it or not, even children's cartoons!

So... if gender stereotypes were socially constructed and passed on from generation to generation, what is at the bottom if we were to dig deeper and to peel these stereotypes away layer by layer? Will we find that humans are all born the same and if left alone will dress the same way, talk the same way, walk the same way and basically behave the same way regardless of gender? This thought might be disturbing to some people (very disturbing indeed). Especially those who have had problems trying to understand the opposite gender all their lives.

There are many people out there who have problems communicating and understanding their counterparts of the opposite gender (myself included... sometimes). Imagine the horror of realising that all the misunderstandings are actually our own fault and not because we are innately different!! Would it not be easier for us to believe that all these petty arguments and miscommunications are actually due to differences in traits, built into us from cradle to death, between the two genders? It is after all a great way to push away all the blame for not trying to understand your counterpart of the opposite gender! This is perhaps why self-help books such as Gray's "Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus" sells millions of copies.

But then again, should we accept Gray's premise that Men and Women are inherently different and thus can only learn to tolerate and make little changes to accomodate each other, how much tangible help is this 'self-help' book actually giving you? Essentially, the root of the problem remains and because we are different, we will invariably have misunderstandings. Are we then, not paying to simply assure ourselves that it is not actually our fault but that of 'differences built into our genes, our blood' that these arguments and misunderstandings arise? Would you feel better that way? I definitely will :)

Shower Products for Men

I was randomly surfing youtube when I chanced upon this testosterone-filled, ultra masculine video advertising shower products for men. Personally, I felt that there are many not-so-subtle messages embedded within the video about gender stereotypes. It also pokes fun at some of the products currently on the market for men: cue the Lightspeed 3000! I have always wondered why the new razors that appear on the market have increasing number of blades with finer blades within blades and finest blades within the finer blades blah blah. Do we really need that many blades that essentially perform the same functions? Or is it just more masculine and manly to have more and thus the products sell better? What are your thoughts?

Tannen's "Can't We Talk?"

First impressions after reading the short piece was - how very true! However, as we delved deeper into the discussion, one particular issue popped into my mind: is 'Gender' due to Nature or Nurture? One of my group member argued that 'Gender' is essentially a product of the socialization process that we all inadvertently go through. This runs contrary to the essentialist, primordialist or the 'it's in your blood' argument. I tend to agree with my group member more than not. Nonetheless, if we were to buy into this argument fully, it begs the question: What about the very first human beings? Who or what socialized them into the 'gender roles' that have since been passed on to us?

Another group member mentioned that perhaps it was the evolution process that humans went through that shaped our 'gender roles'. For example, men in the past tended to be the hunters while women generally take care of the family and the young. These, he argues, causes men and women to develop differing skill sets which eventually crystallized into the 'gender roles' as we know them today. The question then becomes: why were men more predisposed towards hunting roles whereas the women, towards caring and nurturing roles?

Perhaps there is no straightforward answer after all and it is simply another case of "did the egg or the chicken come first"? What do you say?

Me! :)

Hi everyone! My name is Yong Hong and I am a Year 4 Political Science (PS) student. Do not ask me why I chose to major in PS cause that is a question I often find myself wondering about! =P

I am kind of a weird person in that one week I can stay at home with my butt virtually attached to the couch playing games all day long and for the next, I will be out virtually everyday doing anything ranging from basketball, badminton, swimming, jogging to simply sitting by the sparkling blue sea and reading! So my answer to questions regarding whether I am outgoing or not is... I sincerely do not know!

That aside, from the two seminars we have had so far, I forsee a semester of much fun, laughter and interesting conversations ahead. :)

"He Said, She Said" - Why Men and Women think so Differently