tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21806538.post5229972705070572738..comments2023-06-27T00:01:26.443+10:00Comments on What's with today, today?: 1970s - Love (1971)Catiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04434990195940872461noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21806538.post-78604690778119886532012-10-10T11:49:30.222+11:002012-10-10T11:49:30.222+11:00I don't agree. On the one hand, she is not cal...I don't agree. On the one hand, she is not calling men 'sinister'in that comment, and on the other it is hard to read that book and not think of it as 'sinister'. And to say that she is a cynic who "does it all for good sales" seems a long bow to draw, not to mention unwarranted criticism. Catiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04434990195940872461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21806538.post-89839790678961703962012-10-09T22:11:14.692+11:002012-10-09T22:11:14.692+11:00"almost sinister feat of male impersonation&q..."almost sinister feat of male impersonation" ... This doesn't speak well of the authoress' attitude. Were she a man no doubt (s)he would be accused of misogyny. (A word that has been overused in politics the last few weeks.) Can we call her misandryist? Clearly the right word is not misanthropic, which is a common gender word. But maybe that's the truth - that she really does dislike all alike. Or is she just a cynic who does it all for effect and good sales?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com