Vote for Group name change (for or against) and suggest new name

As for a new name, I don't feel particularly inspired. "Books By Women"?

I voted undecided only because I really like this group and am afraid that it will change.

If you're afraid of men swarming in, I seriously doubt that could ever happen for any group that focusses on female authors. Besides, they hardly read. ;)

No, I have to say I would not like men swarming in, but I agree, if we name it anything female related, they won't. How about Reading Women?

vwinsloe, I'm with you. "Girlybooks" has worked for us for many years now, and has attracted nice new members with a sense of humor.

Call it "Book Women on Women Books" or "Girlzzz Books" or "Bitch Lit" or "Gaia's Book Group" or whatever and I fear we'll alienate people we've come to look forward to chatting with.

I'm happy with moving to a continuous thread (I presume other topics can still be introduced).

I don't have strong feelings about the posting requirements, unless retaining the current rules would discourage the hit-and-run type comments from trolls. Maybe somebody who belongs to more than one or two groups could weigh in?

>6 nohrt4me2:

Surely the members of this group can come up with something better than either your examples or the moronic "Girlybooks". One-note jokes don't wear well. It might have been ironic-cute for the first ten seconds seven-eight years ago.

But, suddenly I'm finding, even worse than the name is the notion that this group might deliberately aim to discourage men from joining. Since none of us present is responsible for the current name and the joining request, it didn't occur to me that such discrimination might be actually desired by the current members.

I think it is appalling. To be clear--a group focussing on under-represented writers, women in this case, is obviously an excellent, necessary thing. But why on earth would anyone want to restrict membership to women only?

How is that any better than deliberate gender discrimination against women?

Maybe we need another poll. If this discrimination is what most think this group is about, well... some of us don't belong.

I'm not going to vote because I've just now joined, but I will say that in all the years I've been an LT member and seen the posts in my Talk list, the group name is the reason I hadn't thought it would be a group I'd enjoy.

>8 kgriffith:

You are not the only one! I ignored it forever and then prevaricated about joining forever.

GlitterFemme posted my exact thoughts!

LT polls are open to everyone. As far as I'm concerned, even lurkers have a say if they feel involved with the tenor of the discussions and have preferences and whatnot.

I generally judge a group by its posts, not its name. Lots of LT groups have whimsical names and I like that.

I don't think the group is trying exclude men by using the name - to me it read as a name to describe the books that are discussed here. Just like "M/M Romance... A cocky li'l group" describes the books discussed there.

I'd say that if there are a lot of people who are put off by the name, then change the group so they can post without joining rather than change the name. If that results in abusive posts or constant derailing of conversations, then it can be returned to a join-to-post status.

I like the join to post status. We have very few trolls, perhaps that's a reason. As for discriminating against men, I'm very glad men seldom post here. The few trolls we've had have been men, I don't like having to prove over and over that feminism is a "real thing".

I have no problems with "join to post" groups. Why would you not join a group if you are interested enough to want to be part of the conversation? I've never quite understood why joining was only an option rather than standard. As for the name, I don't have a strong opinion either way. It didn't put me off joining for long because I discovered the group through recommendations based on my library, so I realised it couldn't be just about chicklit.

I joined the Feminist SF group when I first joined LT in April last year - and it promptly went quiet :( I was a bit resistant to the name of this group at first, imagining books marketed as "chic-lit" with pink covers and "girl obsessed with getting a man", which is not my thing at all (my prejudice, I know!). Eventually, after reading through the posts for a few days I saw that it covered a wide spectrum of writing by women and would be a comfortable and interesting place to be, so I joined. Men can follow this process too ;)

Also, as mentioned upthread, "join to post" does seem to cut down the number of trolls and thread hijacks so I would be reluctant to lose it.

>7 LolaWalser:. I agree with >13 Citizenjoyce:. I get so tired of the anonymous haters and trolls that are absolutely everywhere online. So fatigued with arguing with devil's advocates and #notallmen posters. So frustrated with men's voices invalidating and drowning out women's opinions. This happens in other groups when self-appointed expert men with their self-published books proclaim themselves to be feminists who are interested in promoting women authors.

I don't think that it is "discrimination." There is nothing barring men from joining this group. To do so, they would have to join a group called "girlybooks." If they have enough humility to set aside their machismo for five minutes to do that, then perhaps they would be able to engage in discussions here and be respectful to women.

I have no problem with men posting in this group IF they read books by women and want to talk about them. In my opinion, we should be encouraging men to read more books by women. I post in the African/African-American Literature group when I read books by African and African-American writers, even though I am white, and I don't see why men shouldn't post here. In Club Read, I virtually converse with men as well as women, and they are all serious readers and I think if they chose to post here they would have substantive things to say.

I would hate to push men away, just because they are men. I'm all for keeping trolls out, but I think the join-to-post keeps them out. (And are trolls all men?)

I'm not sure about the name change. I joined because a LT friend recommended this group, and while she did say that the name wasn't really a match for the group, I took her recommendation over any "queasiness" about the name.

But I agree with my friend, the name is not a great match for the group. But I can't think of anything better. (I'm not really good at naming things. :)

Can people come up with an option to change to, before we vote on a name change? I'm voting Undecided until a name I like is proposed as a new name.

Despite my fear about creating a target for misogynists, as I stated above, I voted "undecided" about changing the name.

I think that >18 wookiebender: makes a good point-we shouldn't vote to change the name without knowing what we are changing to. If the majority wanted to change the name, then "Reading Women" as suggested by >5 Citizenjoyce: would be a good alternative. I think that there is a double entendre in that name that might serve the same function as the girlybooks name.

>18 wookiebender:. Not ALL trolls are men. Not ALL misogynists are men. But...

>19 vwinsloe: Yes, but... indeed. I do agree that most trolls are probably male, but I'd hate to assume that means that all men are trolls. But I think we're probably all in agreement there.

And as regards the name, Don just suggested Grrlybooks. :)

I like both Reading Women and Grrlybooks!

By the way, if someone asks Tim et al to change the name, it may be possible also to add one or more new administrators too.

>7 LolaWalser: LolaWalser: Lighten up, friend!

My names were not offered as serious alternatives, but you proved my point: Some current members will get pissy or snippy about whatever the name changes to. And, now that there are partisans for a name change, I fear there will be hard feelings if the name is NOT changed.

I think this whole effort is disruptive to the group. It reminds me of squabbles over what color the table cloths ought to be at the tea party. It doesn't frickin' matter as long as there's something to eat.

Highever, since this ball's a rollin' now, I would make this my last word on this thread:

If you propose name changes, please think about the tone and tenor of a long-standing group that has worked well for years and has attracted new and valued members. If you must change the name, change it to reflect and enhance group cohesion, not just to make your mark on the territory. That's a man thing.

16> Agreed. The issue is with the perception of the name, not the name itself. As the name is not actively threatening or based on oppression by a dominant group, there's no real reason for it to change. A changing perception, however, is welcome.

>23 nohrt4me2:

No, sorry, not liking your deliberately ridiculously examples doesn't make me pissy and snippy, it makes me someone who dislikes ridiculous names and cheap provocation.

There have been complaints about the name of this group ever since it was created and I know LTers who don't bother with it because of the name. Two people joined yesterday just to say as much.

Being a minority opinion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can be sure there are people who dislike the name even if they don't talk about it.

>24 Korrick:

Right--it's about the perception of the name, but in combination with the joining request and the fact that the discussions (in my memory anyway) are pretty much 100% female-dominated.

Whether any one individual wants it that way or not, I'd say there's a strong whiff of "men keep out" about the group by now. Cumulative effect if you like--and the longer this goes on, the less likely it will change.

I don't think I'm more fond of men (or "trolls") than any other woman here (rather the opposite, likely). It's the hypocrisy that gets me--knowing how I'd feel about such a situation with genders reversed.

>16 vwinsloe:

I don't think that it is "discrimination." There is nothing barring men from joining this group. To do so, they would have to join a group called "girlybooks." If they have enough humility to set aside their machismo for five minutes to do that, then perhaps they would be able to engage in discussions here and be respectful to women.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that I need to humiliate anyone, to "teach them a lesson". I'd be livid if this argument were made by men before they let me approach "Guybooks". It's not a normal, casual expectation of respect such as we all have in relations with other people. It's deciding a priori that men are disrespectful machos and that they need to be "humbled" before they are allowed to the table.

As I said, it reminds me of hazing.

>25 LolaWalser:

If allowing someone to join a group named "Girlybooks" is humiliating someone, then there's something fundamentally wrong -- that means humanity has agreed that the condition of being a girl, or even associating with girls, is humiliating in and of itself.

I'm not a fan of the name "Girlybooks" for this group, but that being said, I still joined the group, follow the posts, and occasionally post myself. Obviously, it wasn't a deterrent to me joining.

Personally, though, when I hear the word "girly" it conjures up demeaning visions of pink clothes, nail polish, and "valley girls" from the 80s. I don't like using the word girl to describe women; we never call grown men boys! I think the level of intellect represented here is not reflected in the name Girlybooks.

That is my extreme take of the title. On the other hand, I can easily accept it as a cute name for a group whose theme I love. In the end, I don't care what the group is named, but I wanted to at least throw my two cents in.

I realize that words can have vastly different connotations to different people, so please don't take offense if you like the name Girlybooks. I respect that opinion as well!

>26 amysisson:

I don't disagree, but notice that we likely will never get to discuss that excellent point--why things "girly" are despised--with men. That said, there's the important point (to me anyway) that adult women are infantilised by being called "girls" and that this habit plays into the long tradition of seeing and treating women as children, dependants, weaklings.

>27 japaul22:

Agreed.

I have no issue with a "men keep out" aura. The reverse happens so often in institutions of power, whether implicitly or explicitly, and is so difficult to circumvent due to sociocultural prejudice that an Internet group doing things differently is a relief. Female solidarity is stigmatized enough.

On the topic of trolls, because this is a dedicated "female" group every troll you ever see will always and forever be a misogynist men. To be contradictory is the very nature of those horrible little creatures, and so whatever concept or idea a group is built around is exactly what will be opposed by the troll in question. A group for Christians will be trolled by athiests, a group for athiests will be trolled by Christians. A group for democrat will be trolled by republicans, and vice versa. To dedicate a group to Star Wars is to invite Star Trek trolls, and to dedicate a a group to fluffy mystery novels is to invite literary trolls.

Every feminist group you see will be trolled by men like that. Just like every African group will be trolled by racist. It doesn't mean that everyone white is racist, but it does men that if there is a congregation of people of African descent then that is where the racists will go to troll.

Hopefully you don't think too poorly of the rest of us men because the nature of this group attracts the ones who are like that.

I voted "undecided" because I don't know until someone comes up with a better name. Personally, I don't see what is wrong with "Books by Women". It is not particularly catchy, but I don't know why it has to be. If the old name has been off-putting and if a new one increases the diversity of the membership (among both women and men), so much the better!

>31 krazy4katz:

Going by the poll, it's unlikely there'll be a majority for a name change.

In that case, I'd suggest to at least have the joining request lifted.

As was mentioned before, it is unlikely men will overwhelm a group focussed on books by women in any circumstances, so I believe that any fear this place could ever be dominated by male voices is groundless.

I suggest we give it a few more days and then poll about removing the joining request.

>29 Korrick:
I don't think the purpose of this group should be to "get even" with male-dominated environments. We can have solidarity around the appreciation of female writers without having to restrict it to "our" gender. In fact, I would hope that the goal of this group would be to broaden the reading of female writers. We should look to the future where good writers of every gender are appreciated. We should not focus on the injustices of the past. Positive steps promote change.

Perhaps there should be a group called "Girls Chat" if you want to keep out men. It would kind of be like the religion groups. I wouldn't join but it would be a resource for some.

k4k

>33 krazy4katz: I have no interest in "getting even". I have an interest in not pretending that "reverse sexism" is as valid a cultural concern as sexism.

I have to agree with Krazy4katz. That sort of attitude only makes things worse, as it re-affirms the beliefs of sexist and alienates non-sexist. As an equalist who harbors no sexist sentiments whatsoever, I can say that it is always a major letdown to be mistreated by women based on my gender. Fortunately it doesn't happen often, and I'm intelligent enough not to assume that one woman's ignorance isn't an accurate representation of an entire gender. Alas, the reason prejudice and discrimination exist is because the average person lacks the ability to see things on the large scale, so mistreating people based on their gender or race - regardless of your justification - will only cause more backlash and negativity for the cause you stand for (that being feminism.)

Basically, if you want everyone to be treated equally, the best way to go about it is to treat everyone equally. Obviously treating people differently based on their gender isn't going to get the best results on the equality front.

Note: None of this means you can't give a sexist man a stern talking-to. Those guys do, indeed, deserve a swift kick to the testicles on a regular basis. Maybe that's not the best way to convert them, but it's probably worth the satisfaction.

Nobody is advocating discrimination against anybody here. No one wants to prohibit anyone from joining.

What I am trying to talk about is "self selection." If you want to join a group named "girlybooks" and then stick around to talk about literature written by women then I think that we would love to have you.

I don't think we have to change the name or the courteous, thoughtful discussion that goes on in this group in order to be more welcoming to those who may not value either.

35> Hate the game, not the player. Sexist men worry me less than sexist attitudes that are considered the norm. Being put off by "girly", whatever the gender, smacks of ageism along with sexism. The fact that this is a common reaction, and nearly ubiquitous among men, makes it even more problematic.

The word "girly" needs to be retaken by women and transformed into a describing characteristic, not a denigrating epithet. Equality is all very well, but not when it marginalizes differences for the sake of white-washed androcentricity.

>37 Korrick: I'd agree - isn't that what the whole grrrlz movement has been about - taking back a word that has been used to demean women? Same as with queer - take away the negative power in the word by using it positively.

>37 Korrick: "Being put off by "girly", whatever the gender, smacks of ageism along with sexism. "

I have to admit I never thought about it that way. I have a different sense of "girly" than "girl". Girl Books feels different to me than Girly Books. Not that I care that much about the name of the group really. Once I figured out the true purpose of the group, it really it didn't matter to me. I guess I have lived too long with the connotations of girly.

I don't see anything wrong with a man not wanting be in a "girly" group, in the same way that I wouldn't be offended if a woman didn't want to be in a "manly" one. Obviously taking offense to the word "girly" is going to be ubiquitous among men, just like taking offense to the word "manly" would be ubiquitous among women. There is nothing sexist about either of these reactions, in my opinion.

You may have a point where the ageism is concerned, and it is something that I struggled with years ago. In high school, you called the girls "girls" and the boys "boys," but right after high school I started referring to males and "guys," a symbol of passing maturity, but I still referred to girls as "girls." I have since switched to "ladies," but I still see women refer to themselves as girls even into late adulthood. I don't necessarily see it as conscending in anyway, but on the off-chance that someone DOES find it offensive I choose to use the more neutral word.

Is that disagreeable?

40> I don't see anything obvious about why either 'manly' or 'girly' offense should be ubiquitous.

Oh, the certainly shouldn't be, for sure.

I would certainly love to hear what everyone here feels about the words "girl" and "girly." I mentioned that I don't like referring to adult women by girl because I don't know whether or not it is condescending, but there are multitude of adult women who have "girl" in their screen names on the internet. Perhaps that should be another poll entirely, as I'm curious what the consensus would be.

Personally, I would never make a screen name with "boy" in it, and I don't necessarily think I would like to be referred to as a boy, so that is why I hesitate using the word "girl" to describe adult women.

This is turning into absolutely not what the group is about. If you want a dialogue or debate about how men and women see each other best to use the Pro and Con group or maybe start a Man-Woman Dialogue group. This group is for discussing books by women and, as far as I'm concerned, mostly among women.

Why "mostly" among women? What does that mean?

In the few years I've been a member of this group the membership has been almost exclusively female. Fine by me. I'm not interested making this a group where men feel comfortable. Men feel comfortable all over the world. This, to me, is a woman's space. For those who want to dialogue about gender issues with men, make a group to do that.

>45 Citizenjoyce:. I concur.

45: I am deeply saddened by this.

>45 Citizenjoyce: this, to me, is a woman's space

That is not what I have always believed, or what I want. To me, this has been a place to talk about books written by women. Everyone, men included, should be able to do that.

>45 Citizenjoyce:. My feelings as well. Maybe because I'm a scientist and am constantly in men-dominated spaces, I feel more comfortable and enjoy having spaces that are women-dominated. Not exclusive, not explicitly anti-men, but just someplace I can be a woman and forget that there are spaces that exist that implicitly exclude me.

>48 rebeccanyc: To me, this has been a place to talk about books written by women.

I only recently began posting here, but this is why I have. It's nice to have a place to focus on the female experience and perspective. I think I first came to it because a book I was reading was being discussed here-- the best way to find new groups, in my opinion.

That said, I am neutral about the group name in the same way I am neutral about book titles-- sure they can pique your interest, but it's not like you can tell from them what the book is really about. Ultimately, it's all marketing, and I'm inclined to think that if a person avoids the group because they don't like the marketing, it's their loss.

Does everyone agree that the poll trend indicates there won't be a majority for a name change?

If yes (this poll can naturally remain open indefinitely), let's consider the second point, the join-to-post request.

My argument is that this would allow wider participation, and easier participation from people who may not necessarily dislike "girly" so much, as be wary or shy because of perceived hostility.

Two counter-arguments already raised were concern about male voices dominating and about trolling. IMO, both are simply unlikely. I just can't picture men flocking here in any circumstances, and LT in general seems to be remarkably troll-free.

Note that nothing has to be permanent, the status of the group can be changed back and forth easily enough. (It would be better if someone asked staff to transfer "powers", for convenience's sake. Not me, btw.)

The poll:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/175588

>47 Ape:

I am saddened by this as well, but don't let it deter you! I also speak as a female scientist in a male-dominated field.

Remember that there are 746 members in this group, many of whom have genders that are not identified by their names or posts. If you have been enjoying the conversations, please don't stop participating. One thread with a few discouraging comments do not necessarily reflect the group. If you have found it inviting until now, please stay.

I feel like this conversation derailed quickly so I'm not going to get in to everything posted here or on the related two threads.

Like some others, I found "girlybooks" initially a bit misleading as I assumed this group would be about chicklit only. BUT when it came up as a recommendation, the name was intriguing enough for me to click on and see what it was all about. Once I did that, I knew instantly that the group was for me and I never had an issue with joining something called girlybooks, anymore than I would have an issue joining "bloke books," "guybooks," or even "Manlybooks," if I agreed with the group's intention.

Anyway, I voted undecided because like wookiebender and others, I wouldn't be able to vote conclusively without an actual proposed alternative. I've not liked anything suggested here so far -- I don't mean to offend anyone, but nothing has grabbed my attention.

For comparison purposes, I went over to goodreads (where I am not a member) and looked for their women's groups. Nearly all of them are exclusively for women - right there in the description. Several of the names included some variation on "bitch," which I find at least as troubling as "girly." These ones stood out to me as the least exclusive while still giving an explanation of the group's intention:

Novel Ladies

Ladies & Literature

Bookish Gals

Of course, the first two make sound like they are only about fiction, whereas our group also includes nonfiction. All three also still sound like they could be meant to exclude male participants.

I also found a group that sounds more like ours, although with a more structured approach.

FABClub (Female Authors Book Club) — 247 members — last activity 12 hours, 38 min ago
Books & Literature → General
We read books written by female authors and then we talk about them. All gender identities are welcome to become members of this group. All book selections will be written by female authors only, but cover a variety of genres and topics including but not limited to; feminism, gender politics, women of colour, biographies, award nominees, new releases, general fiction, science fiction, women around the world, and LGBTQ. Let's mix it up! Please add your favorite books by women to the shelf so others can check them out too. Also, please participate when you can; the more the merrier!

I like that the "FAB" part retains some of what others find witty about "girlybooks" while the full name actually describes what the group's focus is. We could do a variation like "FABulous Reading (Female Authors' Books)" or something to that effect.

But that all being said, it seems like so far the group has been opposed to any possible name change. I suppose an alternate is always to have two groups - a new one with a different name/new administrator/wider parameters and then people could join both, one or the other, or neither. That seems like it could stretch some of us thin though ...

One final note is that I think we could at least change the group description so that "yes, men can join too" is not actually in a parenthetical but just part of the description. It's a baby step.

Also, while I like the current group picture 100x more than the previous one, maybe a picture of a woman reading a book doesn't signify that the group is about reading female authors. What if we had a new picture that was a stack of books by women writers in a variety of genres?

>53 sweetiegherkin:, >54 sweetiegherkin::

I agree with the sentiments in both of these posts.

>53 sweetiegherkin:

Nearly all of them are exclusively for women - right there in the description.

Do you mean they explicitly say men are not welcome?

There seems to be more than a few women saying that the name is upsetting or offensive to them. While I don't give a hoot about what the name is nor the response it provokes in the unidentified potential male posters, it seems to me that *women's* feelings about the name of a group dedicated to reading books by women might mean it is worth changing.

>57 nancyewhite:

I wouldn't disagree if there were anything close to approaching consensus on changing it, but the poll in the first post of this thread shows that 22 would like to keep the current name versus 5 who would like to change it (plus 5 undecided).

>58 amysisson:

I like consensus. Generally speaking, I think it should be the decision-maker, but I also think there are folks who are expressing deep upset about the name and that means something too regardless of consensus. Someone (sorry I just don't have the time to go reading all of the various threads again to get details) said something like it evoked girly magazine pictures posted in a workplace she visited as a child and that she felt bad every time she saw the name.

I don't think anyone had even nearly as strong an attachment to the name as that. And other women say that it makes them feel bad as well. To me that the name makes group members feel that way gets a bit more weight than solely the outcome of a poll.

I agree with Amy, we tried to get a sense of a majority opinion and did so as well as I think is possible in the circumstances (meaning, obviously it's unrealistic to expect every single member to vote or that the poll is utterly "scientific" etc. And that's before we even come to my sad failure to word them in the best way...)

And without at least that imperfect basis (say if the numbers were reversed), I really think changing it is a non-starter.

I only wish nobody felt like we couldn't even ask!

>59 nancyewhite:

Fair point.

May I suggest a possible new name for Girlybooks: Libris Femina. Latin (more or less) for "women's books". The meaning is the same, but it sounds a bit more serious.

> 56 Pretty much, they specified that they were "women only" in the descriptions.

I just joined this group, and personally, I love Girlybooks, but I also like Libris Femina on a more serious note.