OnlineBookClub.org

Quite the opposite, I think. I feel that the term "empowerment" is overused and tends to be conflated with "wow power." Zia was so insecure that she needed to feel accepted by one of two men whose best trait seemed to be their looks. While Bryce was a much safer bet, he was a control freak in his own way. True empowerment to me means not caring whether men find you attractive or not and pursuing the things that are meaningful to you. I am on the tag end of my 50s and have learned the hard way that being seen as "hot" is not as important as we are led to believe it is.

I am of the opinion that describing a woman in sexually appealing terms is downgrading for women and places the emphasis on their appearance rather than their personality, and this book did do that sometimes. So even if it does try to tackle sexism, that is overshadowed a bit by the objectifying descriptions.

I think the author wrote this book and portrayed the women in it the way he saw most women around him or on tv. But he may have exaggerated his view of women for the sake of writing this book. Ultimately it depends on how you look at it. Some people may want it to be more forgiving of women and others with similar experiences may think it's perfect. I think it's a bold blend of both worlds.

Karlee Berrios wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 11:50 I actually felt like the book had misogynistic undertones throughout. Every single woman was talked about with sexual undertones. Even the future MIL, “Her smooth golden thighs wink from underneath her dusty rose tennis skirt, complete with a white spaghetti-strap shirt”. And Makayla is portrayed as a caricature of a person, as if being successful and still being a good person wasn’t possible for women. To me, this book felt written by someone who sees women as one-dimensional and doesn’t have a very high opinion of them.

I agree with your point, I detected the same undertones, every woman was perfect, even in their imperfection. It put too much highlight on the exterior, and while the author was explicitly claiming that there is more to it, by trying to differentiate Zia and Jazz, I didn't feel like it was justified with their actual actions.

Even though the description at a few places might seem sexist, but it was through the eyes of the character who thinks a certain way.
Embracing everything about one self, not just sexuality, is true empowerment.

I really think it depends on how you look at it. It's true that women are sexualized in this book and there are some sexist comments. But I don't think the author intended it as this book has erotic scenes and he wants to show how some characters feel about women. I think those voices are of some characters and not of the author.

John Owen wrote: ↑05 Aug 2021, 22:32 It's more of empowerment to me. Zia is portrayed as brave and unashamed of who she is and what she wants, even if it is sex.

I believe so as well. Zia came across as formidable capable, and self-assured in who she is. It's an empowering portrayal to me.

I lean more towards the opposite. As a woman, I felt myself creeped out at some of the descriptions of Zia. He just had to mention that she had 36D breasts pressed up against Baxter? It’s great that she had this well established job and we see her move up, but why ruin it with always mentioning her body?

6eyed wrote: ↑08 Aug 2021, 12:43 I got mixed signals from the author throughout the book. So much that I wanted to find out if the author was a black woman, like I had originally thought.

I actually searched to see if the author was indeed a woman: every female character described was seen through the renowned "male gaze" in my opinion.
On the whole, I really wouldn't define this novel as feminist.

Karlee Berrios wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 11:50 I actually felt like the book had misogynistic undertones throughout. Every single woman was talked about with sexual undertones. Even the future MIL, “Her smooth golden thighs wink from underneath her dusty rose tennis skirt, complete with a white spaghetti-strap shirt”. And Makayla is portrayed as a caricature of a person, as if being successful and still being a good person wasn’t possible for women. To me, this book felt written by someone who sees women as one-dimensional and doesn’t have a very high opinion of them.

I agree with your conclusion. Focusing on the female characters' appearance and sex appeal is a clear giveaway that the author doesn't understand what most of us that identify as females consider empowering.

Sexism or Feminism? No! I think all the author tried to do was to portray the female characters as being very strong, confident, and focus. Most especially, people who have a goal and believe in their dreams.

The author didn't seem sexist to me. From my own experiences, I do know women who act like that (wear high heels to work or are aggressive.) It is also a sign of strength. However, there are also other types of strong women that maybe the book forgot to mention. It would've been nice to get more types, but I'm pleased with the book as it is anyway.

Amy Luman wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 16:53 I don’t believe that the author intends for the book to be sexist. I think they are trying to portray Zia as a strong female. The way it comes across to me is that she is trying anything and everything she can to make the male characters like her.

I dont quite agree. Zia trying anything and everything to make the male character like her does not come across as zia being a strong women. She just feels as if she wants what she wants anyway. And not in a positive way. Even after she notices strange things about her lover she does not let go. Which is not healthy.

While I do not believe the book is intentionally sexist, it does have some sexist undertones that bothered me throughout. Zia's character is somewhat successful in tackling misogyny, however, the rest of the female characters feel unreal and more like tropes, for example, describing the mother in law as having "golden thighs" that "wink" form under a skirt. I can definitely see both sides of this argument.

Chiwelite O wrote: ↑05 Aug 2021, 18:32 I think the author intended to portray some female characters as strong, ambitious and formidable however, this did not seem to have been achieved as the book could be said to very minor sexist views or a sexist undertone. The description of female characters erroneously left them objectified instead of focusing on the content of their behaviours and characters.

Hi! I think you have a point; the author objectified women although attempted not to. I think the romance genre probably will have sexist and feminist undertones (or outright be part of the book's theme) regardless of the story.
I don't think wearing five-inch heels or mentioning sexy clothing is either stereotype. Personally, I would be terrified of wearing five-inch heels anywhere because of how tall that is for a shoe. (I'm such a clutz I would trip and break my ankle is what that reminded me of when I read about her shoes, not sexism). Also, it does not seem appropriate to wear those shoes to the office but as long as Zia is following office dress code policies, it does not bother me. I do wonder if she is taller than the men working at the office when wearing high heels or if she is a short woman and five inches makes her feel "normal" about her appearance. They never said anything in the story beyond focusing on her race, hairstyle and eyes.

While I could see Bryce's logic regarding how he found her shoe size (she took her shoes off in front of him), it seems odd he would know her dress size unless he saw a tag sticking out and just didn't mention that. It strikes me as stalker behavior or he is just lucky that what he bought fit and she liked it enough to wear the outfit. Is buying that sort of expensive outfit for a first date too much or is it just my opinion? The stereotype of "women like pretty expensive things" might be considered sexist. Zia expecting he wants sex on the first date and he declined is realistic. Some people probably behave that way, I just thought it was foolish to expect something exciting when you barely know someone. It makes it sexist her thinking that is clearly what he wants if he is going to go through so much trouble.

Regarding the characters, I think that there should be some variance between traits in each character but he should have been more thoughtful in the way he expressed additional traits. I think the primary objectification of female characters was that the women who were apparently killed off died quickly and completely helpless. Women are not always helpless (even if they do lose their lives because of sickening circumstances). The fact that people loved reading about a serial killer and helpless victims when it turned out to be non-fiction is the most offensive/sexist part. People are getting joy from reading/wanting to film about their weaknesses/helplessness is almost as sickening as the crimes themselves.