Entertainment For Lively Minds
How To Be A Woman
Posted by Bob on 21 June 2011 - 9:39am.
It's About:
Well, largely it's about Caitlin Moran. Part extremely funny memoir, part extremely funny tract, "How To Be A Woman" is a timely restatement of feminism which works from the basis of "everyone being polite to each other". Her targets are wide ranging - from bad porn to vajazzles to Katie Price to why you should/shouldn't have kids. It's hilarious and irreverent, and often surprisingly moving.
More than that, though, it's important. Gender politics appears to have taken a 20-year backward step sometimes, and it's worth remembering that feminism is vital to, well, everything. And that it shouldn't be "humourless", "man-hating" or the sole preserve of very cross academics.
Length of read:
Short
Might appeal to people who enjoyed:
Well, this is a tricky one. There's not a great deal of recent precedent for this book, and god knows it's far too funny to be recommended to lovers of "The Female Eunuch". If you like and are not threatened by either women and humour, or the combination of both, you'll like this.
One thing you've learned:
Just how much pressure women are under to conform to some horrendous depillated Hollywood bastardisation of female sexuality. I mean, I sort of knew. But now I feel like I know a little better.
Also, Pete Paphides is a lucky - and apparently thoroughly lovely - chap.
Caitlin Moran once sent me a vaguely saucy text...
... inviting me to the pub via a friend of mine she was there with. It arrived as I was packing up for a romantic weekend with my FPO.
I could have wept, a night in the pub with Caitlin Moran sounds like a perfect night to me...
I am actually weeping for you. Right now.
Sounds pretty perfect to me, too.
I've said it before, and now I'll say it again, incidentally:
This book, filthy as it certainly is, is going to be discreetly left in my daughters' bedrooms as soon as puberty looks like it's getting underway. I want them to grow up knowing this stuff.
I genuinely had a moment....
"Romantic weekend in Rye" vs "Pub with Caitlin Moran." In the interests of not having my arse kicked followed by a dumping I went to Rye obviously. She then sent me a blurry pic of her looking all come hither as well in a not as futile as it should have been attempt to get me to change my mind. I wish I still had it... My friend, it will not surprise you to hear, was completely smitten.
She's just great.
A properly nice person who's massively bright, not shy of a bit of an argument, and is bloody funny into the bargain. What's not to love?
"Pete Paphides is a lucky chap"
What a patronising, sexist comment. Seriously. This is the sort of knockabout 'well done love' attitude that books like this are written to tackle.
I'll assume that's a joke.
Partly
But ask yourself this: Would you close a review of The Selfish Gene with "Mrs Dawkins is a lucky gal"?
Have you read the book?
It's in large part a tribute to her wonderful husband. He does seem to be a great bloke, and a marvellous husband. They're both lucky.
I don't know why I'm bothering, since I suspect you're just trying to get a rise out of me by "cleverly" turning my positive review of a feminist book back on me with an accusation of a completely absent sexism. Apologies if not, but we've disagreed a lot lately, and I'm not interested in having spurious fights picked with me.
Spurious fights
Look, I'm sorry for disagreeing with you Bob. People disagree with me all the time on here, but when *I* disagree with *them* I get accused of bullying and picking on people.
Ha.
I didn't say you were "bullying" me, or "picking on" me. That would suggest that I felt you were in some kind of dominant position. I don't.
I did say that I think you're picking a fight where none exists.
I wasn't
I just found the last line of your review ironic. But let's leave it at that.
Bit harsh, isn't it?
One might just as well criticise your generalisation that this is 'one of those books'. How does saying that Pete Paphides is a lucky chap equate to having 'well done love' attitude? Couldn't it mean that the OP has admiration for CM and her work?
I'm genuinely mystified sometime about these kinds of responses. Of course, it could be that I'm a patronising sexist, but I genuinely don't think so.
Thanks, P Jr.
That's exactly it. I admire Caitlin Moran enormously, and think that anyone would be lucky to be in a relationship with her, let alone a relationship which comes over so beautifully in the book.
But as I say, I think Spartacus is just poking me with a stick to see if I'll rise.
Is it not just because Bob's a heterosexual man?
He's saying Pete Paphides is "lucky" because he has a desirable wife. In the same way that I might call the respective partners of Zooey Deschanel or Isobel Campbell "lucky" because I find them attractive.
This is one situation where the same completely applies for both sexes though. I'm sure a heterosexual woman may refer to the partner of an attractive man as "lucky" too. I can't see how that would in any way be remotely construed as sexist.
Jeepers
Only by standing on your head and looking at it in a mirror could Bob's comment be construed as patronising or sexist. Really. I don't get it. How is it sexist? Whom does it patronise?
Mrs Dawkins isn't lucky.
Richard is as ugly as an advark and severely lacking in humour. Mrs Brian Cox however, is a lucky girl.
Perhaps
Though I'm not sure she'd appreciate being called Mrs Brian Cox.
I'm not entirely sure
that Lalla Ward would be happy about only being "Mrs Richard Dawkins either".
But, having read all this, I was thinking about getting hold of this book, now I definitely will.
We could always ask her
I think Dave Amitri still has her number.
Sadly I don't actually know her name...
... and so can call her nothing else. If she posts here annoyed with me I will of course apologize.
*edit I have no idea who Richard Dawkins is married to either. Should I know who Lalla Ward is? Her name isn't familiar to me at all.
None meant
Here's a brief bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalla_Ward
you've probably seen her, even if you don't know the name :)
I would so do Mrs Dawkins
and he'd probably be a selfish Gene Hunt about it.
That saucy school uniform in City Of Death. Yum Yum.
Whats wrong with being sexy?
Good review,
don't know much about her actually, though she has been featuring a lot in Sunday papers lately. Will have a look at this, thanks.
Cheers, Bob, I'd be interested to read this...
not least because I'm intrigued by CM's observation that women are under immense pressure to conform to a 'depillated Hollywood bastardisation' stereotype. Is this all women? Just young women? All the women I know treat that stereotype with a mix of scorn and bemusement.
#flounce
I enjoy a good debate, and my comment (part humour, part serious), was meant to open up a healthy discussion about the nature of sexism. My spies tell me I'm now the subject of some discussion on Twitter(!) which will no doubt spill onto here as Bob's friends come to fight his corner.
I believe this sort of thing (debate spilling over into off-site discussion that some parties aren't privy to) leads to unhealthy, personalised discourse, so in the words of Duncan Bannatyne and Co. I'm out!
But genuinely, cheers to all. This has been a good place to waste time when I should've been working. I shall find somewhere else, or perhaps do more of the work my company pays me to do.
Either that, or some people thought you were wrong.
Don't flatter yourself: you weren't the subject of any "discussion". I blew off a tweet which simply said "Oh, for fuck's sake" with reference to your post (because I was frustrated) and followed it up when questioned with an explanation of why I'd just said it.
Have you considered the possibility that maybe people just disagree with you? Why not stick around and explain what you meant? If I'm wrong - if people above are wrong - tell us why.
Incidentally - there's nothing stopping you from joining Twitter. It's nice: you get a lovely badge, and a pleasant feeling of smug elitism.
hi Bob!
Perhaps not the most opportune of moments but I've just caved in and joined twitter. @mikemooney12. Only problem is I don't know how to find you or any other members of t'Massive.
Help?
I've just followed you...
...and while I was at it, I've tweeted you a link to Drakey's list of Massive Members, and asked everyone who follows me to follow you.
Yay!
Hey, big fella
The Vorgongod klaxon has been sounded - you should start getting some 'follow' messages through. Make sure you follow back, and we'll start showing up on your timeline. Hurrah!
Also I've got a long list on my profile page of Word Massive tweeters.
Search for @drakeygirl, click on my profile page and look under my lists.
schwing!
Thank you both! I'll get on it after labour.
I wonderd how to do that!
Cheers Drakeygirl!
However
If I follow list I don't seem to be following everyone? Am I missing something?
Following a list isn't the same as following individuals
It just means you can click on it and see all the tweets of the people in that list. So it's a quick and easy filtered look at Word Massive conversations.
I also individually follow people from the list, so they show up in my general timeline. There are advantages to this: when you both follow eachother, you can can also send DMs (direct messages no-one else can see) if you want to exchange phone numbers or other info you don't want in the public domain.
Hope this makes sense.
It does indeed
Thanks for the education.
I'm not sure there's any need for that
I won't flatter myself that you were referring specifically to me when you said "Bob's friends," but Bob and I do tend to agree on many things and - due to a combination of too much free time and stubbornness - argue these points argue them strongly here.
You and I have disagreed on a few occasions and have had our run-ins, but lively debate is what keeps this board thriving. Sure, they have been times when you've annoyed me a bit, but I'd be willing to bet that works both ways. It'd be a shame if you left because of this.
Incidentally, I'm sure Caitlin Moran would find this whole thread ridiculous and hilarious in equal measure.
In no way taking sides here....
as I enjoy Bob's posts enormously, but I think you'd be a loss to the site Spartacus, I find you very witty and literate.
You must be
Mrs Spartacus Mills
I just speak as I find...
without agenda.
And I'm nobody's wife, you sexist swine.
* smiley face *
Papa Lazarou disagrees
"Hello Daaaaaaaave...."
That's a little unfair
I've never met Bob and don't follow him on Twitter, nor exchanged any kind of opinion with him outside of this forum. Indeed, I've disagreed with him on more than one occasion... but now anyone who defends his point of view is in danger of being tarred with the "Bob's friends" brush. I think that's unfair on those who are his friends - your assumption is that they'll automatically defend anything he says, no matter what - and to those who aren't, who might just happen to think you're wrong. And I think think you're wrong. I genuinely cannot see a sexist slant to the comment that appeared to anger you. Sorry.
And I'm a lucky man to be the relationship I'm in. I don't think that's a sexist thing to say.
Thanks, Mum.
Oops. I mean WORD BLOGGER WHO I'VE NEVER MET BEFORE.
Obviously.
Likewise
Far from being one of 'Bob's friends' I am a relatively infrequent poster who just, on this occasion, thinks that the criticism was disproportionate.
I very rarely comment on this kind of post or debate, as I've seen it too often decline into entrenchment and the taking of personal slight. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in that. It would thus be a shame if my comment, on this occasion, contributed to someone leaving the site. I hope that you'll reconsider, and accept that my criticism was of the comment and not ad hominem.
Spartacus
Please reconsider, I enjoy your posts (while not always agreeing, but variety is the spice of life and all of that), & would be very sorry if you left.
As I said, please reconsider.
Les (JTB)
*whispers*
Les, that was in June! I think it might be the last time me and Spartacus had a contretemps, actually. All is cool.
I was hoping that the track feature might be permanently disabled this morning, actually, so I could reinvent myself as this:
Yours sincerely,
Manny.
Oops !
That will teach me for posting at work & giving neither this board, or my job, my full attention.
As you were.
Cheers!
But as Bob said, this nonsense is long behind us! Myself and Bob are cool now, we're like Barlow and Williams.
Yeah...
... Deirdre and Betty.
Tango and Cash
Turner and Hooch
Horne and Cord... No. No. Sorry. There are limits. And I'm not *that* fat.
No...
... but I bet you make a decent hotpot.
Um, getting back to the book.
Which I'm about half way through, and which I'm enjoying immensely.
It's fun, filthy and thought-provoking, which is pretty much the holy trinity as far as I'm concerned.
But there's one moment that really jarred with me. Early on, in a very funny passage, Caitlin describes her youthful determination to enjoy her birthday, despite it being cheap and low key (eg her 'cake' was a baguette filled with Philadelphia).
She writes:
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I'm not po-faced. I'm all for free speech and earthy expressions. But the use of the word retard seemed unnecessary and thoughtless. As the mother of a girl with a learning disability, maybe it's too close to home for me to be objective about. But that word always hits me with the force of a slap.
Maybe I'm being too sensitive. I know I'm not the only one, and there has been a mini-furore online about the 'r' word in this context. I suppose 'joyful ebullience' is not the worst thing for a retard to be linked with. But it's a bit crass, isn't it? All retards are mindlessly happy? Not for one moment would I imagine Caitlin Moran ever writing such a ridiculous spouting of crass stereotypes and foul names as: "I had all the limp-wristed campness of a bender" or "I had all the natural rhythm of a nigger." I apologise for actually spelling these out, but I feel the same shock and repugnance at reading the word retard.
I understand that after a bit of a furore over this injudicious use of language, the next edition of the book will be changed. I also understand that Caitlin has apologised for any offence caused, and explained that the phrase was taken from her diary, written as a 13-year-old. But I think it's a slight cop-out, because - as I read it - that sentence comes from her as the narrator looking back, and isn't a diary quote, direct or otherwise.
Anyway, maybe I'm being ridiculously oversensitive. The book is crackles with vim and vigour and i would thoroughly recommend it. A pretty good way to sum it up is to say it's full of joyful ebullience, in fact.
I just wish that one, lazy, thoughtless word hadn't been in it.
That jumped out at me too.
I read it and reread it and sort of independently came to the conclusion that she was intending us to understand that she was adopting a 13-year-old voice. But if that's true, it was pretty clumsily done and definitely jarred.
Glad to see it's being rectified next edition, and I don't think for a minute that you're being oversensitive. It's a weird and surprising anomaly, but it *is* an anomaly, I think. I've never seen her use the word in her other writings, as far as I can remember - and I think I would remember - and nothing like it occurs in the rest of the book.
She annoyed me on Newsnight
She annoyed me on Newsnight last night. Too happy to go on about herself, that one. Couldn't give a rusty what she says to her beloved kids either.
Yup
Saw it too just now. Paxman chairs a discussion with three women. All with a clear idea of what they want to say before the show starts. Unfortunately, none of them ends up saying what they want to very well.
Screw any serious debate, instead the fascinating prospect of showing off rears its head. "This must be the best episode of Newsnight ever!!!" The prospect of talking about the representation of women in porn, and "preparation for surgery with Dr Bling" in front of Paxman is just too much fun. But against the plan, he just lets it all wash over him. To coin a phrase.
Oooooh, I've been looking forward to reading this for ages.
Even more so now. Sounds great. It's on my wish list (birthday coming up soon...)
Howdy
Back already? Yes. I'm not going to post another yawnsome apology thread, but suffice to say I do regret taking this topic off-course and taking the focus away from the review itself.
I hope the review makes the mag, and I didn't intend to offend anyone who agreed with the OP.
I will continue visiting here, but just reading and perhaps making the occasional droll remark. No more arguments! I can't help myself sometimes. Erm yeah, there you go (shuffles awkwardly). And I may buy the book.
PS - The most disappointing aspect of this thread is that DrakeyGirl has yet to furnish it with a picture of a goat burning a bra.
I would do,
but it sounds terribly dangerous to me..
Is "Bobs Friends"
like being a friend of Dorothy?
Or is it an unwanted follow up to 90's luvviethon 'Peter's Friends'? With Ken Branagh doing the world's worst drunk acting
I'm a big chubby pretentious twat...
...so I'm a shoe-in for the Stephen Fry role.
Just me and Ken
but I liked Peter's friends
a 'full-on robot chubby'?
Anyway
What's wrong with being sexy?
[edit] darn, dogfaceboy beat me to it!
Not sure
I'm afraid I've been put off reading Caitlin Moran's book mainly by the massive exposure its had in the press over the past couple of weeks (particularly the Times) and my none too fond memories when she co-presented Naked City (I thought she was a bit of a prat). I'm suspicious that it's being overhyped by all her chums in the media, but, on Bob's recommendation, I'll probably give it a go when it appears as a paperback '3 for 2'.
Ah, give her a break re. Naked City!
She was only 18.
The book's lovely. I can see how her "Queen Of Twitter" thing and being friends with absolutely *everyone* might grate, but I genuinely think she's lovely, and she's written a cracker here.
Time to give it a go...
Picked it up this afternoon in Waterstone's (paperback) as part of a 3 for 2 deal. That came round quick.
Not been a fan of Moran's to date - I'm sceptical of anyone whose Sunday paper comment pieces are accompanied by a half page, heavily styled photo of the author, let alone someone who expresses in print the ambition to have her own "signature hairstyle".
I'm giving this a go because from the excerpts I've read it seemed a brave and overdue book to write, and because of Bob's positive review. Will leave my prejudices at the gate and see how I go.
If it tanks there's always the new Maconie.
she
Was great on Newsnight last night.
Spartacus Mills...
..you are Danny Baker and I claim my £5.00!
Ha!
I wish.
YDFMD
...
Just finished it Bob
And on your recommendation! Good review! Captured it in a nutshell! Very enjoyable and very funny in spots!
And now me too
I finished it yesterday. I think it's a brilliant book, getting the balance between serious polemic and fart gags absolutely spot-on. I simply couldn't agree more about celeb mags, plastic surgery and the pervasive misogyny in the media at large; and I really enjoyed her evisceration of Jordan. In fact I don't think I disagree with a single one of her substantive arguments.