<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>banane - Latest Comments in I Am Not Chick Lit</title><link>http://banane.disqus.com/</link><description>I write about SF, writing, and technology.</description><atom:link href="https://banane.disqus.com/i_am_not_chick_lit/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:39:38 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: I Am Not Chick Lit</title><link>http://www.banane.com/2006/11/08/i-am-not-chick-lit/#comment-4733335</link><description>&lt;p&gt;At what point does the descriptive "chick"  become derogatory? If it means writing by women, for women, that alone shouldn't earn it a critical classification.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It seems that when just women socialize, it's deemed 'chick talk', which I find funny, since I pretty much speak about the same subjects with my guy friends as I do with my women friends. In fact, more 'war of the sexes' talk gets dished with certain guy friends than between the girls.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;All that aside, I'll check out the book. Anthologies of good fiction, they're right up my alley, whether penned by chicks or otherwise!&lt;br&gt;Congrats to your friend for scoring the shelfspace at Target, too. Maybe our demographic IS in there with &lt;i&gt;avec curlers&lt;/i&gt;, but they're just as likely to be picking up motor oil as nail polish.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nancy</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:39:38 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>