Those not interested in gender politics, go ahead and move along

[sketchingbecca]

Time for a quick rant!

"Every so often, when I meet a younger woman, the subject of feminism comes up. Almost invariably, she will tell me she's not one, which leads me to grill her on her philosophy. And, just as invariably, it turns out that by my definition, she is a feminist after all.

Universal suffrage? Yes. Equal pay for equal work? Yes again

Comments

I'm flattered (and feel silly for saying so)

[ed_rex]

My rampant egotism saw that you visited either my journal or my website and so, being the curious sort, I glanced at yours.

And found myself quoted! Which is frankly pretty gratifying, so I thought I'd say "hi there!" (and resist the temptation to self-servingly compliment you on your good taste).

Incidentally, I first read both Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre only after I'd passed 40 and I liked them quite a bit more than you did. Which leads me to wonder whether our differing opinions have any age or gender components or if it's just a matter of individual taste.

Re: I'm flattered (and feel silly for saying so)

[sketchingbecca]

Hello, and thanks for stopping by! I appreciate your taking the time to comment. :)
You pose a good question, and it's certainly something to consider! I know that, at 19, my tastes are likely not completely developed. Perhaps I will reread those books in the future and appreciate them more. On the whole, however, I find I personally enjoy romantic elements, but I don't always enjoy Romantic-era or -style prose. For instance, I love Jane Austen's work because it combines romance with grounded and rational thought and behavior, and I enjoy F. Scott Fitzgerald's books because he wryly and critically analyzes the relationships his flawed characters share. Of course, this is probably more than you ever wanted to know about my literary tastes. :)

Re: I'm flattered (and feel silly for saying so)

[ed_rex]

I know that, at 19, my tastes are likely not completely developed.

Something I've learned (and re-learned, and then learned again) over the years is that, so far at least, there ain't no such thing as "completely developed" tastes, at least in my case. That said, I have become more able to quickly decide whether or not something is of interest to me, but there is still no reliable way for me to know if what I think is good today is something I will think is good five years from now (or even vice-versa).

I suppose I'm not much interested in romance as a genre, but I am a sucker for a good love story - which maybe means only that I'm a sucker for a good story? (I loved Austen first because she was so damned funny. And still don't understand the appeal of F.Scott; The Great Gatsby has always just made me shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, it's okay, but ..."

Ahem. Speaking of over-sharing ...

Re: I'm flattered (and feel silly for saying so)

[sketchingbecca]

I'm still trying to cultivate a true and sincere 'me', I think. (Thank goodness for three more years of college to experiment with! And then the rest of my life, of course, to hammer out details and add finishing touches.) I guess I've always been a sucker for romance, but I do have, to some degree, a discerning taste. I love stories of people who are equals in intellect or character (Darcy and Lizzy, Catherine and Henry from Northanger Abbey, Anne and Wentworth from Persuasion) or spunk and audacity (like in a supernatural adventure/romance novel called Soulless by Gail Carriger) falling in love.
I'm a huge nerd for Jane Austen, and it perplexes me when people don't appreciate her satire. Oscar Wilde is another favorite, but pretty much everyone knows he's brilliant.
I read Gatsby in high school, and I'm currently reading The Beautiful and Damned. Mostly, I just love the way Fitzgerald writes. He seems to understand how words can carry a feeling in their sound, as well as their meaning. Reading too much of him can start to depress