1 2 3 4 47 Replies Latest reply on Jan 12, 2015 9:03 AM by captainnook Go to original post
      • 15. Re: Free books mostly for women

        You may be new to this forum, or not, but one thing you will learn sooner or later. There are people here that have nothing better to do than point out even the smallest mistake you might make, and if they don't agree with you, try to destroy you. What ever you do, don't get involved in an argument with or try to express a view to these people that they don't agree with. You'll get no where.


        It's better to just ignore them and move on. I still have trouble understanding this after all these years and sometimes get caught up in these discussions. It's fruitless and both you and I have to learn this. Just ignore them.


        I stick to my original question and won't let distractors move me. There are plenty of people here that know there are books written specifically for a female audience. Some non-females might read them but they are not the main, intended audience.

        • 16. Re: Free books mostly for women

          Yes, "bodice ripper" has always been an offensive term.


          I'm sorry if you guys are just learning this now, if no one has told you these things were inappropriate or offensive, but the fact that this is the first time hearing doesn't make it untrue.

          • 17. Re: Free books mostly for women

            Um, no one in this thread is new to this forum, and no one here, and definitely not me, is trying to destroy you or anyone else. Maybe crank down the hyperbole? If you want to go around being offensive to women, that's your business, but you should at least do it with your eyes open, knowing that you're being offensive. And if you don't want to be offensive (as I'm sure lots of folks here don't), and didn't know that you were being offensive,now you know that these phrases are some you probably shouldn't use.

            • 18. Re: Free books mostly for women

              Hmm. "Bodice ripper" was used humorously in several threads here in the past by some notable community members. I'd certainly never encountered it before, nor cared much before or since. I thought it was a disparaging term for literature that itself is sexist, a back-handed way of calling crap crap.


              So I guess there's a PC way that one needs to talk about bad literature now. Is Naughty Nurses offensive? We need to start a list of rules.

              • 19. Re: Free books mostly for women

                Thanks for the lesson.

                • 20. Re: Free books mostly for women

                  Thanks for the lesson again.


                  I don't, however, find that calling books written for a female audience offensive to anyone, except maybe you. I have not heard one women complain. Books have always been written for certain audiences and always will be. Some people like Si-Fi, some people like non-fiction, some people like biographies - and some people (yes, mostly women) like romance novels.


                  Reading through this discussion I find that you are the only one offended and feel the need to correct the rest of us. Your opinion counts - buts it's only your opinion.


                  If you want to express yourself, fine but let the rest of us do so without chastising us.


                  Just my opinion - live with it!

                  • 21. Re: Free books mostly for women

                    "Bodice ripper" is a derogatory term for romance novels in general. Maybe you just misunderstood the common usage of the term?


                    I don't see anything sexist about Naughty Nurses.



                    Yes, I've seen bodice ripper in the forums a few times and while it makes me cringe, I didn't feel the need to say anything because it doesn't press my buttons in the same way as "books for women" or "books for boys"  (and their related companion terms) do. There's been (and continues to be) lots of industry discussion on why these (books for girls/women/boys/men) terms are awful and need to go away, and lots of cringing and tongue-biting when industry professionals use them (because some still do). There's been a LOT of discussion in SFF lately about sexism in general, and there's always discussion in kids/YA about categorizing books in a way that make boys in particular feel like they're supposed to only enjoy certain types of books.


                    We have a problem in the US where boys stop reading earlier than girls and men read less than women (and reading in adults is abysmal in general). Anything that discourages reading is problematic IMO, and terms that tell people what they are and aren't supposed to enjoy do just that.


                    The problem I see with the free books, and IMO it is a problem, is that they are continually in one genre, not in a breadth of genres. I've always seen it as a problem that B&N is targeting "Julie" because the truth is that there is no Julie - there are just a lot of customers with their own interests. I've specifically called out the Julie profile as sexist multiple times in the past, and if all the free books being romance is due to targeting of "Julie" then that's just another example of it. Realistically, though, I doubt B&N puts that much thought into targeting the freebies.

                    1 of 1 people found this helpful
                    • 22. Re: Free books mostly for women

                      nlstein wrote:

                      I have not heard one women complain.

                      Dunno who the women in your life are, but in the writing and publishing communities this is a regular topic of discussion, especially in the realms of romance, SFF, and kids/YA.


                      nlstein wrote:


                      Books have always been written for certain audiences and always will be. Some people like Si-Fi, some people like non-fiction, some people like biographies - and some people (yes, mostly women) like romance novels.

                      Generally, books are written for readers. SciFi is written for people who like SciFi, Non-Fiction is written for people who like Non-Fiction, and Romance is written for people who like Romance.


                      nlstein wrote:


                      Just my opinion - live with it!

                      Always nice to see you're part of the problem.

                      • 23. Re: Free books mostly for women

                        Sorry but I disagree. "Bodice ripper" is a term that's been around a long time, and in the vernacular refers exactly to that type of romance book - you know the type, period Romance with lots of well, ripping of bodices. I think it's a perfect term and in no way derogatory or sexist. Yes, it is marketed mostly to women because that is the target audience.


                        I'm a woman and I don't happen to care for "romance".  Give me a good sci-fi, fantasy, historical fiction, classic or murder mystery, but I'll pass on the bodice rippers.

                        1 of 1 people found this helpful
                        • 24. Re: Free books mostly for women
                          You'll notice that while I said that "bodice ripper" was offensive and derogatory, I never said it was sexist. It's a term used by those who don't like romance to mock it. There are similar, albeit less popular, terms used to denigrate cosy mysteries (another genre with a high percentage of female readers) and some other genres.

                          And you've made my point - people of all genders read all genres. Romance books aren't for women any more than SFF books are for men (no matter what some SFF writers will tell you).

                          • 25. Re: Free books mostly for women

                            The definition offered up at Goodreads is consistent with how I've interpreted it: "... Bodice ripper is a pejorative term for romance in general that has been recycled to refer to a specific sub-genre of historical romance. Epic in scope and usually featuring more violent sexual content, bodice rippers are the books that ushered in the era of the modern romance novel. Generally published in the 1970s and 1980s."


                            Other definitions have described "non-consensual turning into consensual sex". Much more specific than just mushy romance, at least as currently used. I won't pretend to be up on what's PC in publishing or writing, but there's a group on Goodreads specifically dedicated to fans of the sub-genre which cautions that "... Books read and discussed by this group may contain overbearing heroes, unruly heroines, drama galore, big misunderstandings, long separation of H/h, bucket loads of sexual tension, kidnapping, possible cheating and/or possible forced seduction and/or rape."


                            Perhaps I'm naive, but "forced seduction" sounds a tad iffy.  Personally, I find the genre itself to be a bit detestable, but I don't go preaching about it. To me, the term "bodice ripper" is a euphemism used in polite company to refer to a specific type of lit.


                            I agree that readers can read what they like, but I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that some titles are written specifically targeting a specific audience. I can't imagine that "Mommy & Daddy Open Carry" was meant for a global audience. Adults may read YA, but "The Industry" still calls it YA without setting off alarms of impropriety. Should I scream about the Agism pervasive in the genre?


                            I don't like a genre, please don't go telling me that I'm attacking the audience. Or worse, infringing author "rights". Asking for a broader selection is perfectly reasonable. It's B&N that have the preconceived notions about what is wanted. I don't think it's out of line to say I don't like books that are written targeting women any more than saying I don't like books targeting children. The OP may have expressed this clumsily, but I think the accusations are a bit overblown. A simple "hey, did you know..." would've been more productive.


                            nlstein, weren't you involved in the legendary "last" thread on the old forum?

                            • 26. Re: Free books mostly for women

                              Jeez, Bob. What you personally like isn't the problem. It's the idea that what you (colloquial) like applies to all men, and what you think women like applies to all women that's problematic, and frankly doesn't sound like something you'd say. 

                              You do get what "I don't like stuff targeted toward women" means, right? That as soon as you know a product is marketed to a woman, you're judging it as something you won't like, in a blanket statement that doesn't consider the actual product. You get how that might be a little gross, don't you? And maybe a bit sad also. We're not talking about tampons here, these are books.

                              I though you were a lot more open minded than that. 

                              Would you stop reading SFF if marketers start targeting women? Because in all seriousness, if guys don't start reading more, women are who EVERYTHING will be marketed toward. 

                              And as for the definition of bodice-rippers, read that first sentence again. It's exactly what I said, a derogatory term for Romance in general. It may have been recycled for a specific subgenre, but the way it's still used in the general population is to insult romance books and, of course, those who read them. It's like any other pejorative term.

                              • 27. Re: Free books mostly for women

                                Also, I don't think I said anything about author rights. 

                                • 28. Re: Free books mostly for women

                                  (Sorry, I can't edit in he Jive app *sigh*)

                                  Also, there is a HUGE difference between "marketed toward" and "for." Brooms are marketed towards women, but only the most staunch sexist would say they are "for" them with any seriousness. If the post title was "free books mostly marketed toward women" I wouldn't have had a problem. 

                                  • 29. Re: Free books mostly for women

                                    keriflur wrote:


                                    Also, I don't think I said anything about author rights.

                                    Indeed, but more than one thread in the past discussing filtering or otherwise allowing customers to refine search results has gone down that path. Just getting out in front of it.

                                    1 2 3 4