To me, the readings for this week seemed fairly straight-forward and did not bring up many points of discussion. There was, however, one aspect of the Radway piece that bothered me. Radway had a clear feminist stance concerning the entire issue, but she failed to ever consider the other sides of things. For example, she mentions that "the Smithton women overwhelmingly cite escape or relaxation as their goal [for reading]." (Radway 68) I would contend that both women and men read with the intent of "escaping" reality. Also, she mentions the idea that the patriarchal system established back then (1983) is a probable cause for the escapist mentalities of these women. This could most certainly be true, but could it not be true for men as well? This may have been a very roundabout and confusing way of saying it, but my essential complaint is that Radway loses legitimacy by failing to take multiple points of view into account, especially considering that other angles could bolster her argument.
This article made me think of Paul Rudd's character in I Love You, Man because the character is sensitive, nurturing, and extremely close with his wife, but the issue is that he does not have any male friends to do "dude stuff" with. Even though she essentially has this almost perfect man (although a little on the "soft" side), she still desires him to fill the basic gender roles expected of men.
I hope this first entry is at least somewhat close to what the blog posts are supposed to be.