[ SECRET POST #2337 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2337 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 062 secrets from Secret Submission Post #334.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 3 4 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

15. http://i.imgur.com/AyDkQX2.png

[mekkio]

One the one hand, I agree with your, "Whatever gets them to read/watch/listen to it" philosophy. On the other hand, it can be so frustrating that we have to do this in the first place.

[(Anonymous)]

because it implies "girliness" is disguising.

[(Anonymous)]

* disgusting

[(Anonymous)]

To some guys, it is. To some women, it is. People like different things. Shocking, I know.

[mekkio]

I kind of like "disguising" better. It makes it sound so Cold War espionage.

Though if that were the case, I think there would be many guys who would do girly stuff in order to fulfill their James Bond fantasies.

[(Anonymous)]

No matter what the internet and tumblr will have you believe, most people still go with certain traits to define what is masculine and feminine. And masculine men will not be caught dead reading a feminine looking book. Hell, I am a woman and would not want to be caught reading some romance novel looking book.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it necessarily implies that. It implies that some people are not interested in things that are 'girly', not that it's disgusting or wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

Did you mean to write "disgusting"?

IA, but if that's how they think, the only way to change their minds is to get them to read it and realize it's not disgusting. Yelling at them and dismissing them for holding those opinions has no effect on their behavior and has never had an effect, (in any social movement, not just feminism).

So if we have to indulge their stereotypes a bit to get them to change their minds and in doing so, destroy the very foundations of the stereotype of girliness = disgusting; rather than rejecting their POV wholesale and thereby making it more likely that they will never, ever change their minds, why NOT go the first route? It won't kill anyone. It won't devalue the work. It's just rather eye-rolling and frustrating.

[(Anonymous)]

I can see both sides of the argument, but my general attitude is that books shouldn't be marketed by gender in the first place. And they CLEARLY are. Take a look at all the "girly" covers out there, and then see how many of the authors are women. The covers are designed to appeal to people by gender, and the target audience is usually based in the gender of the author, not the content of the novel. Lots of books written by men have romance (aka 'girly' stuff) in them, but they're not marketed that way. Lots of books by women have adventure and action (aka 'manly' stuff) in them, but they're not marketed that way.

The problem is with the industry. Authors rarely have control over the cover artwork on their novels, and instead the publishers create something and they pigeonhole it based on their own biases. This is one of the few moments I feel lucky to be a woman - I can read whatever the fuck I want and not have to worry about external judgment. But I'm sure that both men and women choose NOT to read things they might really love because they are worried about what others will say when seeing them with the book.

sa

[(Anonymous)]

ALTHOUGH I have to say, this might be less relevant as e-readers like Kindle get more popular. In those situations, no one knows anything about what you're reading, and I think that either less effort will be put into book covers or else fewer people will care about it.

[(Anonymous)]

relevant:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/coverflip-maureen-johnson_n_3231935.html

[writerserenyty]

I think the issue is less that people do this to sell their books but more that people kind of HAVE to do this if they want to sell to a varied audience. It shows the biases that society is conditioned to have.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you'll want to read this, OP, it's particularly relevant to your interests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-johnson/gender-coverup_b_3231484.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/coverflip-maureen-johnson_n_3231935.html?1367956789

[(Anonymous)]

I assumed this was where the OP got the idea for the secret in the first place.

[(Anonymous)]

I just really like your book cover and would legit read a book called Shirtless Man Finds Love.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a great title!

[(Anonymous)]

I love that cover, OP. I lol'd.

I also sympathize with the men. I'm a cis het chick, and I wouldn't be caught dead with that in my hands either.

[(Anonymous)]

I personally find 'girly' covers kind of insulting, so making the book look more 'masculine' is hardly going to drive me away from it. It's not like 'feminine' covers are designed based on what women want--it's designed based on what they're expected to want.

[(Anonymous)]

I love your book cover, OP! Every book marketed towards women looks exactly like that to me. I will never understand how I'm supposed to be interested simply because I'm a woman.

[(Anonymous)]

I assume this will be the "non-girly" variant? (from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/05/09/fix-the-girly-book-covers/)

[kallanda_lee]

To be honest? I wouldn't pick up something that looks like that, either. I know you shouldn't judge a book by its' cover, but since so many books nowadays are basically chicklit and/or targeted at bored housewives and border on being cheesy romance novels, I'm not taking my chances. I'm a slow reader as it is, and I do not care to waste my time with mindless page-filler. Each to his/her own, but things that are specifically targeted at women generally annoy me, and often I feel like they try too hard to be ""girly" or have that "sex and the city" vibe.

So if there are actually decent books out there with kick-ass female characters, I'd prefer them to be marketed in a more neutral way, too. Because that increases the chances of me getting into it.

[(Anonymous)]

I like some of my reading low-brow, and tend to go for the pastel covers with a picture of a stiletto and the like. Totally judging a book by its cover.

[blitzwing]

Because they're not "girly" covers. Guys can like pink, and shoes, and martinis.

It's not just that the "eww girly covers, guys won't like them!" hurts women. It hurts men too, by reinforcing the idea that they shouldn't like stuff like that.

If you're *that* embarrassed to be seen with a cover, you can always cut it off. Ruins its resell value, but unless you're direly in need of that dollar or two of store credit it will get you at the bookstore, it's not that big a deal.

[netbug009]

Because as a girl I'm not thrown off by explosions, robots, and dragons on covers.