Funny in that yeah-not-so-funny-at-all-actually way that the ultimate insult to a guy is to call him the crude term for female genitalia.
Not the one that rhymes with a delightful spongecake your grandmother maybe baked in a ringed pan, or the one named after the industrious flat-tailed critter that builds dams out of twigs and branches, but the one that, whenever innocent toddlers use it to refer to the family cat, their adolescent siblings snort OJ out their noses and then feel, like, really mature for catching the double entendre.
So it makes a certain effed up sense that most any time a woman writes something about the day-to-day experience of being female it’s labeled “chick lit” and is deemed trivial. Even by another woman! That’s what this gal did on Politics Daily.
Please, call my book “superficial” and “opportunistic,” if that’s your opinion. But the topic is neither, and neither are female readers in general, as this yutz who shall not be named lest I make her more searchable seems to imply. I’d love your point of view, both on what she has to say and what she doesn’t say but implies: That it’s not merely my book that sucks, but women’s concerns in general.
Contrast that with this excellent Q&A on TresSugar, which actually explores the topics of women, beauty, aging and power with the true intent of getting people to think, and this post from self-described “old lady” blogger Ruby Wilhite, who speaks from the other side of Formerly. Opinions, please!
UPDATE: I wrote this at the end of a very long day. The piece has been corrected to reflect the fact that the writer of the PD article is in fact female–thank you Erin and PT!–not that it makes any difference.