Normally, I don’t cross-post my own blog with this one, but I’m making an exception because this has me hopping mad.
Last night, I posted this on my blog:
Go take a look at what Mr. Cale McCaskey has to tell us about Romance: The Problem with Romance
Women are, of course, quite familiar with arguments like his. They’ve been used for centuries to denigrate anything associated with women that would, if left unremarked, disprove the bias.
Basically, he’s saying that all Romance novels are inferior because if a book that might otherwise be called a romance is actually good, it’s necessarily anything but a romance. This is EXACTLY like the Victorian era physicians who performed an autopsy on a respected colleague only to discover that their colleague was a woman. When faced with the presence of female genitalia, they pronounced her a hermaphrodite. Because it just wasn’t possible for a WOMAN to have been successfully masquerading as a physician and to have been good at it, too.
Right. When the evidence contradicts you, redefine the world rather than adjust your assumptions.
I’m told he’s busy deleting comments he doesn’t like, so feel free to read his post and come comment here if you worry he’ll disagree with you and have to delete your comment in an attempt to keep his narrow world view safe from anything like truth or an open mind. [Risky Readers can comment here if they like.]
The intellectually challenged among us, which, I guess is anyone who reads romance, can comment about rainbows, unicorns and glitter. If you need help forming a coherent thought, I’m so sorry I’m too dumb to help you.
Amanda almost forgot it is Tuesday! She will be back next week with a regular post. (It’s because of revisions, but let’s pretend it’s because she is exhausted after attending Queen Elizabeth’s Jubilee Sovereigns’ Lunch! Doesn’t this look like a fun group? Who is your favorite king/queen/prince/princess??)