Shameless Magazine.

January 9, 2008 9:20 AM

Shameless Magazine. An independent magazine for teenage girls.

From the about page:

Shameless is Canada’s independent voice for smart, strong, sassy young women. It’s a fresh alternative to typical teen magazines, for girls who know there’s more to life than makeup and diet tips. Packed with articles about arts, culture and current events, Shameless reaches out to readers who are often ignored by mainstream media: freethinkers, queer youth, young women of colour, punk rockers, feminists, intellectuals, artists, activists — people just like you! We tackle teen life with wit and wisdom.

Proudly independent, Shameless is a grassroots magazine produced by a team of volunteer staff members, with content guided by a teen advisory board.

posted by chunking express (147 comments total)

Not just Pepsi Blue, but also a broken link. *golf clap*
posted by DU at 9:25 AM on January 9, 2008

I get a 502 Proxy Error. Maybe because I'm not a teenage girl?
posted by soundofsuburbia at 9:25 AM on January 9, 2008

I looked briefly. It seems to be a tool for turning teenage girls into feminists. There is a proper place for self-empowerment and gender equality, but the world already has far too many feminists...

Nobody should give a crap that Chris Matthews supposedly pinched Hillary Clinton's cheek. They should be surprised that her face didn't give way to reveal a hideous space creature in the process.
posted by mystyk at 9:26 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]

mystyk

Your name ends in the right phonemes, but I think you misspelled the beginning.
posted by milarepa at 9:29 AM on January 9, 2008 [9 favorites]

...the world already has far too many feminists...

No reply, I just want to bask in your glowing wisdom.
posted by DU at 9:31 AM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

So, it's a print magazine for Canadian teens. And their front page blogs newsy bits from the mainstream media.

Umm...okay.
Is this, like, a CanadaFilter thing I don't understand?
posted by the sobsister at 9:34 AM on January 9, 2008

The world needs more shameless teen girls.
posted by chlorus at 9:35 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]

Well, this thread is off to an infuriating start. Are people really itching to start another feminist/anti-feminist fight? I think the magazine sounds like a worthwhile idea, and I hope it does well.
posted by bassjump at 9:36 AM on January 9, 2008

There is a proper place for self-empowerment and gender equality, but the world already has far too many feminists...

Tell me more about this place.
posted by kosem at 9:37 AM on January 9, 2008 [27 favorites]

This is a really good link! I know many people who are going to want to see this. Maybe finally a replacement for Sassy!
posted by parmanparman at 9:37 AM on January 9, 2008

Isn't Stickam the site for shameless teen girls?
posted by boo_radley at 9:39 AM on January 9, 2008

Nobody should give a crap that Chris Matthews supposedly pinched Hillary Clinton's cheek.

She should have punched him in the face.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 9:42 AM on January 9, 2008 [13 favorites]

Tell me more about this place.

I bet he'll say, "It's in the Kitchen!"
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:46 AM on January 9, 2008 [4 favorites]

what in god's creation is wrong with myst-dick's profile? ow, my eyes.
posted by desjardins at 9:48 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

sorry, I misspelled that. MsDick.
posted by desjardins at 9:49 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

mysogynyst
posted by DU at 9:53 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oh dear god.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:01 AM on January 9, 2008

I bet he'll say, "It's in the Kitchen!"

No, but nice try at an ad hominem. Next time perhaps you'll argue the issue, but I doubt it.

It's like that old George Carlin comment: "...they want that thing in the middle of the street to be called a person-hole cover..." Feminists are women who take a good idea to a bad limit, usually with PC as their ammunition (because everyone's too afraid to call BS on something once "PC" is invoked).
posted by mystyk at 10:02 AM on January 9, 2008

The link wasn't what I thought.
posted by tkchrist at 10:02 AM on January 9, 2008

First reaction: Good god. Teenage girls sure aren't any easier to understand than they were when I was in high school.

Second reaction: In fact, it's still for the same reason. They're generally smarter than I am.

mystyk: I looked briefly. It seems to be a tool for turning teenage girls into feminists. There is a proper place for self-empowerment and gender equality, but the world already has far too many feminists...

Oh yeah!!??? Well, I think the world has too many MEN! YOU SEXIST PIG!
posted by koeselitz at 10:05 AM on January 9, 2008

The editors seem to think that Chris Matthews is a serious journalist. THAT's their mistake right there.

Besides that what I've read of the mag leads me to think that this is exactly what the right-wing imagines the "politically correct" world to be -- freaking out over the use of certain words to describe certain things. And issue turf-wars (see Men on "their abortions").

Oh well, I'm clearly not the target market for this anyway.
posted by clevershark at 10:08 AM on January 9, 2008

I find the site to be pretty disappointing. A typical inbred cookie-cutter liberal/feminist blog, with no indication of any appeal to real living teen girls as opposed to ideological fantasy teen girls. They should focus less on The Message and more on presentation.

[NOT FEMINISTIST]

It's like that old George Carlin comment: "...they want that thing in the middle of the street to be called a person-hole cover..." Feminists are women who take a good idea to a bad limit, usually with PC as their ammunition (because everyone's too afraid to call BS on something once "PC" is invoked).

HOWBOUT THAT WAR ON CHRISTMAS AMIRITE
posted by nasreddin at 10:09 AM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

NO ONE ever wanted it called a "person-hole cover." You may have noticed that it's George Carlin's job to be funny.

Besides, it's a utility hole cover. They don't keep men down there.
posted by sageleaf at 10:10 AM on January 9, 2008

mystyk: No, but nice try at an ad hominem. Next time perhaps you'll argue the issue, but I doubt it.

Good idea. Let's argue the issue, shall we?

There are far too many anti-feminists in the world.

Okay, now I made my inflammatory statement without defining any of my terms in the hopes of stirring up shit and pissing a lot of people off and then sitting back and laughing at what happens. Now it's your turn again.

This is how we argue the issue, right?
posted by koeselitz at 10:11 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

"...they want that thing in the middle of the street to be called a person-hole cover..." Feminists are women who take a good idea to a bad limit, usually with PC as their ammunition (because everyone's too afraid to call BS on something once "PC" is invoked).

Welcome to 2008. You can drop your wide lapels, big hair and tinted glasses in the bin here and we'll outfit you with some modern wear.
posted by DU at 10:11 AM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

It's become shockingly easy of late to completely derail threads on MeFi... either bring Ron Paul into it or make the sort of facile statement that's sure to offend stereotypical liberals.

I was hoping that MeFites could see through that sort of thing.
posted by clevershark at 10:16 AM on January 9, 2008

Ron Paul would love this.
posted by stavrogin at 10:19 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

So for future reference I shouldn't be linking to indie girl magazines, because they are pepsi blue and inspire rage in random members here?
posted by chunking express at 10:23 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter: The birthplace of Ms. Godwin's Law. Like Godwin's Law, but instead of Nazis, titties.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 10:24 AM on January 9, 2008

By the way, the more I read it, the more I like this magazine. Thanks, chunking express. It's not unappreciated. Seemed tough to get through at first; got better the more I read it.
posted by koeselitz at 10:24 AM on January 9, 2008

Funny, I was just about to pop in here to say there were far too many mystyks in the world.

ARGUE THE ISSUE.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:26 AM on January 9, 2008

...now I made my inflammatory statement without defining any of my terms...

Intriguing. The scientist in me, so used to precision, says it was certainly sloppy to leave terms improperly clarified. So far, point conceded.

...in the hopes of stirring up shit and pissing a lot of people off and then sitting back and laughing at what happens.

Here's where the train derails. Your assumption of my intent is erroneous. Biases do not become facts simply by the strength of one's belief. I refute this point.

This is how we argue the issue, right?

Well, it's closer. I figure I'll try to address the issues for which I have time.

Starting with: "Well, I think the world has too many MEN! YOU SEXIST PIG!"

That was just more ad hom. A feminist has a choice to be so; a man does not. Attempting to equate them means nothing.
posted by mystyk at 10:26 AM on January 9, 2008

Mother of a 17 year old girl, here, and I know she'd like this. I sent her the link, so thank you, chunking express. I appreciate it too.
posted by thinkpiece at 10:28 AM on January 9, 2008

Wow. It's amazing how thin the line is between delusional and trolling.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:29 AM on January 9, 2008 [12 favorites]

So for future reference I shouldn't be linking to indie girl magazines, because they are pepsi blue...

My comment about Pepsibluosity has nothing to do with girl magazines and everything to do with a single link to a product available for purchase where the "more inside" is simply a copy of the about page.

The magazine does sound pretty cool, though.
posted by DU at 10:29 AM on January 9, 2008

Man, capitalism can commodify anything.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:32 AM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

DU, it's a cool magazine. We can never link to products ever? That seems silly.

So much of this thread belongs in MetaTalk -- including this comment.
posted by chunking express at 10:34 AM on January 9, 2008

People, people, calm down! As far as I'm concerned, you're ALL sexist pigs!
posted by Koko at 10:36 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Is this, like, a CanadaFilter thing I don't understand?

WTF. I don't even know where to begin.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:38 AM on January 9, 2008

Does that feel good, Mystyk? All that attention you're getting? I bet it feels great.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2008

koeselitz - To attempt to close out this issue, my use of feminist is as follows: A female who believes that an imbalance exists in every area of life between men and women. Never content with any concession from any male, she believes fairness means imparting special priveleges to women to decide what is or is not proper, regardless of circumstances. She will accuse essentially any man who challenges this belief of being sexist, pedophilia inclined, porn addicted, power hungry, or some combination thereof without ever allowing herself the realization that such a worldview is essentially sexist in the opposite direction.

I'm sure yours differs. I no longer care. I've defined my terms.

I'm done with this thread. This turned from me trying to point out that the magazine is designed to promote a particular flavor of extremist view to a very vulnerable population group to a defense against personal attack.
posted by mystyk at 10:49 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

"For Girls Who Get It" - looks to me like "getting it" consists almost entirely of engaging in an orgy of cliched identity politics and shallow, self-serving outrage. If you really got it, you'd have bigger ideas than making a magazine devoted to taking pride in the genitalia you were born with.
posted by MaxVonCretin at 10:54 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

This turned from me trying to point out that the magazine is designed to promote a particular flavor of extremist view to a very vulnerable population group to a defense against personal attack.

Once again, someone oppressed a man.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2008 [7 favorites]

I like it. I would've liked it when I was 15/16/17, too. My mom was a feminist, so it was just a given in my house (I grew up reading Stories for Free Children in the original Ms. magazine - anybody else read them?). Some of you might think it's oh-so-1978 to still have articles or discussions about the mis/use of certain words or phrases, but it's interesting to me just how defensive some people get around this subject, to the point of having to dig up old George Carlin jokes to strawman (oh, excuuuuse me, strawperson - no, wait, strawperdaughter) the discussion.

As openly feminist as my household was, there was still a lot of stuff I missed, hadn't read, etc., so that when I got to college, and fell in with a bunch of unshaven hippie-wannabes who took Women's Studies classes, I read a whole lot - history, economics, philosophy - and learned even more. Mostly, I learned that people who cling to the never-accurate stereotype of feminists as manhating harridans were a sad lot committed to furthering their own ignorance.

There were a couple of guys my junior year who were in one of the WS classes I took who both said that the reason they were in the class was to learn how to argue against feminist ideologies. (This was a small, private, conservative college that was known mostly for the drinking capacity of its student body and its rampant conservatism - there were approximately 10 people on campus who were willing to say "I'm a feminist" without adding a lot of qualifiers.) By the end of the term, I wouldn't say they'd become hardcore feminists, but they went away a whole lot less ignorant, and with a greater depth of understanding of gender, women, and humanity in general that they'd come in with. If magazines like this help foster that kind of desire to learn, then more power to them.
posted by rtha at 10:57 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think if I'd subscribed to Shameless instead of Seventeen when I was in high school I would've been a much happier teenager. That said, this is a silly thread and discussion and the FPP wasn't that strong, either.

Oh, and Mystyck, you need to start educating yourself about basic schools of thought like "feminism" before you start blowharding all over the blue, where some people (of all genders) might actually, you know, know something about it. We're done with you until then, see ya bye.
posted by DenOfSizer at 10:59 AM on January 9, 2008

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." --Rebecca West, 1913
posted by rtha at 10:59 AM on January 9, 2008 [12 favorites]

Mystyk? You're not a unique snowflake. I bet you feel oh-so-special for taking on the Feminist Hate Machine, but when you define your terms in a deliberately preconceived way, there's just no reason to take you seriously at all.

I'm done with this thread.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

PS: When someone calls you a name, it's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem can only occur within an argument. So if we had said "You're a dumbshit, therefore you're wrong," that would be an ad hominem. But we can snark away at you without committing a Big Scary Latin Logical Fallacy.
posted by nasreddin at 10:59 AM on January 9, 2008 [4 favorites]

WTF. I don't even know where to begin.

stinkycheese,

sorry to furrow your brow.
my point was that there wasn't much there there.
my comment was an attempt to convey humorously the thought that "maybe this is very meaningful within the context of Canadian online content, but a blog for teens that summarizes mainstream media news bits doesn't seem very best-of-the-Webby to me."

did I turn that frown upside down? good.
and now you don't have to figure out where to begin.
posted by the sobsister at 11:00 AM on January 9, 2008

To attempt to close out this issue, my use of feminist is as follows: A female who believes that an imbalance exists in every area of life between men and women. Never content with any concession from any male, she believes fairness means imparting special priveleges to women to decide what is or is not proper, regardless of circumstances. She will accuse essentially any man who challenges this belief of being sexist, pedophilia inclined, porn addicted, power hungry, or some combination thereof without ever allowing herself the realization that such a worldview is essentially sexist in the opposite direction.
I'm sure yours differs.

Yeah, your definition of 'feminist' is pretty much your major problem there. The vast majority of feminists are not like that, but I guess it's nice to have a boogeyman to blame things on. I've met quite a few people who were in a women's studies master's program, which you'd think would be a hotbed of 'feminazism' and not a single one of them fits your description.

I admit it's a prejudiced opinion of mine, since I don't know you at all, but my snap judgement about people making characterizations such as yours are that they either: a) don't actually know many women or b) don't care about the ones they do know as actual people. I mean really, how many women do you know who would actually self-identify as feminists, and how many of them have you actually asked about it?
posted by LionIndex at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2008

Never content with any concession from any male

Equal rights shouldn't be a concession, it should be a fact.
posted by desjardins at 11:08 AM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

did I turn that frown upside down?

Uh, no. Heaven forbid posts here have anything to do with places outside the US.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:09 AM on January 9, 2008

I am simply attempting to have a reasonable discussion about Asiatic Jews, who I define as large blue bottle dolphins with bags of diamonds strung around their necks who are actively plotting to control the finances of the world's oceans. I don't know why people insist on making fun of me, rather than address my concerns, which are serious, and not crazy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:09 AM on January 9, 2008 [25 favorites]

Feminists are awesome. But that's just a political word.

Anyway, hopefully 'Shameless' will last as long, if not longer, than 'Sassy'.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:13 AM on January 9, 2008

Ya'll remember when the gates to metafilter had a sign that said "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS"? It was really nicely done; the letters weren't just stenciled or in some horrible font that you couldn't read, like Gothic or Webdings or some shit. Someone had really spent some time on it, you know. And now it's gone or at least I haven't seen it in awhile. I just wish the person who stole the sign would put it back up. You can just MeMail one of the admins if you want. I'm sure they wouldn't ask any questions or tell us your user ID/number. Or, if you'd like, because maybe you're more the independent type (as so many mefites are), just put it back up yourself at night when the guards aren't around or off having a drink.
posted by sleepy pete at 11:15 AM on January 9, 2008

Is "feeding a troll" similar to "prodding a troll in the hopes of a spectacular flameout"? Because I'm guilty of the latter.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:16 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]

Guided by a teen advisory panel. Is this the stuff teen girls care about? Even 'alt' teens?

The teens I know aren't shallow, by any means, but I don't believe they care whether some old talking head pinched Hillary Clinton's cheek (regardless of the impropriety of the act) or whether Advocate misuses the term "sissy" (etcetera). Though, admittedly, I could be mistaken.

I'm sure there is more to like about the publication once the fulsomeness of the print version is revealed (in your mailbox), but it's difficult to assess from the smart affectation of the blog commentary.
posted by spacely_sprocket at 11:18 AM on January 9, 2008

DU Welcome to 2008. You can drop your wide lapels, big hair and tinted glasses in the bin here and we'll outfit you with some modern wear.

pppffffHA!

Disco DU doesn't advertise.
posted by oflinkey at 11:25 AM on January 9, 2008

my use of feminist is as follows: blahblahblah

how on earth can you possibly defend that definition? It's like saying "my definition of purple is orange. you probably disagree, but I don't care. That's my term for orange: purple." Are you for real? It's just wrong. I mean, you have a dictionary, right? You can go look the word up in any dictionary you like and you'll never find anything even approximating your definition.
posted by shmegegge at 11:26 AM on January 9, 2008

Is "feeding a troll" similar to "prodding a troll in the hopes of a spectacular flameout"?

Yes, no, and maybe.
posted by sleepy pete at 11:27 AM on January 9, 2008

My future reference, my definition of mystyk is as follows: a nine-foot tall tube of Roquefort cheese, entirely covered in feathers. I'm sure yours differs. I no longer care. I've defined my terms.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:29 AM on January 9, 2008 [4 favorites]

My For. Sigh. It's all in the delivery.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:30 AM on January 9, 2008

Uh, no. Heaven forbid posts here have anything to do with places outside the US.

stinkycheese,

You miss my point. I have no problem at all with the fact that the site is not 100% true-blue American-made. I just didn't think it was particularly noteworthy as a site per se or, by extension, as a MeFi selection.
posted by the sobsister at 11:31 AM on January 9, 2008

I am conflicted here. On the one hand, it's nice to see some good media for young women, yet on the other, I think shame is much maligned and has a positive role to play in a cohesive social order. It's more a case of what you're ashamed of.
posted by Abiezer at 11:32 AM on January 9, 2008

Now that the xenophobes, misogynists, etymologists and other assorted bigots have all been routed well and proper, can we talk about the publication?
posted by spacely_sprocket at 11:40 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Wotta shitstorm.

And here's where I understand women wanting to leave MeFi—if shit so obviously fucking retarded as Mysty's takes over a thread, if it's not excised before it metastasizes, then the only thing left is going to be a scorched earth. It's fucking poisoning the conversation.
posted by klangklangston at 11:42 AM on January 9, 2008 [13 favorites]

To attempt to close out this issue, my use of feminist is as follows: A female who believes that an imbalance exists in every area of life between men and women. Never content with any concession from any male, she believes fairness means imparting special priveleges to women to decide what is or is not proper, regardless of circumstances. She will accuse essentially any man who challenges this belief of being sexist, pedophilia inclined, porn addicted, power hungry, or some combination thereof without ever allowing herself the realization that such a worldview is essentially sexist in the opposite direction.

There's your problem. I am not sure I've ever met one of these sorts feminists (more legendary than rare) you speak of. And I am not sure you have either. I think you have this long winded definition to justify your pre-existing prejudice. But whatever, don't argue with fools and all that.
posted by milarepa at 11:42 AM on January 9, 2008

spacely_sprocket wrote: Now that the xenophobes, misogynists, etymologists and other assorted bigots have all been routed well and proper, can we talk about the publication?

Yes, let's do that.

I wish there were more magazines for girls this age like Shameless. I remember a few years ago I was working with at-risk teen/pre-teen girls and we were putting together gift baskets for them at the end of the programme. I was trying to find a good magazine to include in them and I was totally depressed at just how awful the magazines targeted at this age/gender are. And it wasn't like I was unaware of the sexism of mainstream media or anything like that; it was just that I wasn't prepared for the blatant reinforcement of gender stereotypes in the mags. It blew my mind.

So I was thrilled to come across a copy of Shameless in our local independent bookseller. I bought every copy they had. I loved that Shameless was Canadian, too--that was something else that seemed to be a gap in the magazines available for this group.

The content wasn't really age-appropriate for the younger girls, so I bought New Moon magazine, which is an ad-free progressive magazine targeted at 8-12 year old girls. Anyone who's interested in Shameless for older teens might want to check out New Moon if you're looking at stuff for younger girls.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:47 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]

It's not the end of the world the sobsister. You didn't like it, OK fine.

Still, your initial post leaves the impression that the fact that the magazine is Canadian is part of its suck, and that by virtue of the post topic being Canadian, it has no place here.

/ just trying to do my part for the new Metafilter, where someone is always offended by something, and just can't wait to tell you all about it.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:47 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Ya'll sure told him!
posted by BeerFilter at 11:49 AM on January 9, 2008

spacely_sprocket:The teens I know aren't shallow, by any means, but I don't believe they care whether some old talking head pinched Hillary Clinton's cheek (regardless of the impropriety of the act) or whether Advocate misuses the term "sissy" (etcetera). Though, admittedly, I could be mistaken.

I think you are mistaken. I was reading The Advocate at 16, and I would have cared about a lot of the other things they've posted, as would have many of my friends. We were white, suburban, Catholic schoolgirls, but we were rampant idealists who thought we could change the world, blahblahblah.
posted by desjardins at 11:57 AM on January 9, 2008

Again, I can't tell from the link but, typically, I dislike publications that try to be a one-stop shop for a particular demographic. I also dislike editors who try to tell me how, or what, I should think about something, especially if it comes across as a directive to assimilate, and think the thought as a member of the demographic.

[Hmm. I just reread that, and I guess that pretty much sums up why I don't subscribe to any magazines.]

My previous points still stand, however (reiterated here to separate it from the massive attack):

The teens I know aren't shallow, by any means, but I don't believe they care whether some old talking head pinched Hillary Clinton's cheek (regardless of the impropriety of the act) or whether Advocate misuses the term "sissy" (etcetera).

I'm sure there is more to like about the publication once the fulsomeness of the print version is revealed (in your mailbox), but it's difficult to assess from the smart affectation of the blog commentary.
posted by spacely_sprocket at 12:02 PM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

stinkycheese: I think I know where sobsister was going with this, so perhaps I can rephrase in a way that will make more sense and be less offensive.

"Hm, this site seems to only consist of blog posts about mainstream media stories. I know it's a Canadian site, and I'm not Canadian, so perhaps there's something about Canadian Internet culture that I don't know that makes this interesting or FPP-worthy, because I don't see it. Perhaps a Canadian could enlighten me - is this common for Canadian magazines?"
posted by desjardins at 12:05 PM on January 9, 2008

desjardins I think you are mistaken. I was reading The Advocate at 16, and I would have cared about a lot of the other things they've posted, as would have many of my friends. We were white, suburban, Catholic schoolgirls, but we were rampant idealists who thought we could change the world, blahblahblah.

I would never argue against the teens I know being idealists—ready and willing to change the world (and thank god for their exuberance, humanity, sense of justice, empathy, etc.)—but wouldn't their righteous indignation be as inflamed by a reading of The Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, InContext, Sojourners, Z Magazine, etc?
posted by spacely_sprocket at 12:11 PM on January 9, 2008

I posted the link because there aren't too many magazines for teenage girls like this -- as far as I am aware. The fact it was Canadian was a bonus. If people think the blog is lame, fair enough, why not read the contents of the actual articles from the magazine? Many articles are online. I thought Breaking the Silence was an interesting enough read.

It's a bit disappointing that this thread is as big a train wreck as it is. This is a pretty tepid link as things on the Internet go.
posted by chunking express at 12:12 PM on January 9, 2008

Everyone get off your high horses and leave mystyk alone.

He's just reacting to the post-feminist woman's assertion of her power. The feminists took "the power back" from men, but they were largely unsuccessful in their efforts because unlike the younger generation, they failed to realize what men have always known. Women already have the power. Now that women know they have the power, are willking to assert it, and know the power's effect on men, men are scared senseless.

Mystyk and others with similar reaction are rightfully worried that when women become aware of their overwhelming power, there is little role in society for men. In fact, the staff of this magazine serves as a microcosm of what men fear the world will become. Lots of smart, funny, attractive women who keep a guy or two around to help with the plumbing, or in this case "the tubes". Lots of men are afraid of this new world, because they don't understand it, at least not in its entirety. Men are vaguely aware that women want different things, and that women their age are often annoyed by some things, but they don't really know what specifically is annoying them or why.

But men are deeply convinced that women are the gatekeepers of sex and are acutely aware of the changing sexual dynamic. Ultimately, this is what men worry about - getting sex. How can they get sex from women who can get for themselves everything women of previous generations needed from men? Worse, if women are independent free thinkers and they are aware of the affect their sexaulity has on men, what hope do the black-tshirted, canvas sneaker wearing, pimple faced, xbox-playing men of the world have? They worry that with a smile and a coquettish laugh, they'll be over at some girl's apartment installing her home theater while she sits on the chair talking to her alpha-male, MBA wall-street boyfriend.

Mystyk and his cohort know that in in the post-feminist world, human society will become like that of the bees. Men will be little more than drones, bumbling and stumbling into each other collecting food and building a home for the babies for the slight chance to mate once with the queen and die.

In other words, the post-feminist woman has reduced the pre-feminist male to operate on his most instinctive level. Men are not worried about competing in the workforce being economically successful. They think, "Women are smart and sexy and they know it," and their next thought is "OH MY GOD HOW I WILL I EVER HAVE SEX AGAIN?!"

These women make men feel intellectually and socially inadequate, and in men, inadequacy nearly always manifests itself sexually. For evidence of this, you need look no further than your email's spam folder. Men are flooded with solicitations to make their genitals monstrous and their ejaculations prodigious. If these ads weren't successful, they wouldn't keep sending them. So why the obsession over this? Because even though a drone can never be king, he can still be reproductively successful. Maybe she'll keep me around because as the ad says, "IM HUG3!!!!"

What these guys need to realize is that in the end women want the same thing as men - pleasant company and a decent meal every once in a while.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:15 PM on January 9, 2008 [10 favorites]

Well, the post at the top of the site right now is on the possibility of legal brothels in Vancouver for the Olympics. That's a lot more interesting and racy than what I was expecting.

I wouldn't regard this in the way it's been characterized here (blog posts about mainstream media), but YMMV. I'd compare it to, say, Bitch magazine. Viewed a certain way, isn't Bitch just magazine articles about mainstream media?
posted by stinkycheese at 12:18 PM on January 9, 2008

On reading these stories, I find it depressing that the magazine presents itself as so damn edgy but turns out to be so damn insipid.
posted by nasreddin at 12:21 PM on January 9, 2008

[Rubbing hands briskly]

So what have I missed?

[reads]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

I dislike publications that try to be a one-stop shop for a particular demographic.

Have you ever read the essays on Kierkegaard in your typical car magazine? You'll wish you had your targeted demographic back, and ASAP.
posted by maxwelton at 12:22 PM on January 9, 2008

[The humungoid meltdown derail here sucks pretty badly. If y'all could cool it a bit and let the conversation that seems to be happening between the cracks happen, that would be great; a lot of this should have gone to Metatalk a while ago if it was going to happen, but this is one of those weird cases where that stuff is an intractible majority of the thread.

I'd hate to delete it because of that, so instead we'll try this. Please just cool out a bit and focus on discussing the actual link.]
posted by cortex at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2008

Have you ever read the essays on Kierkegaard in your typical car magazine? You'll wish you had your targeted demographic back, and ASAP.
posted by maxwelton at 3:22 PM on January 9

Why the adjective 'typical' in front of 'car magazine'? Are there any car magazines with essays on Kierkegaard? If so, I'm subscribing immediately.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2008

Pastabagel - we're hardly responsible for catering to mystyk's insecurities. He wants to make stupid assertions, he's going to get called on them.

Oddly enough, in another thread, hadjiboy had the opposite advice as you regarding a guy with similar views to mystyk. He advocated kicking the guy in the nuts.
posted by desjardins at 12:26 PM on January 9, 2008

sorry, cortex. shoulda previewed.
posted by desjardins at 12:27 PM on January 9, 2008

Are there any car magazines with essays on Kierkegaard?

"Fear and the torque advantage of diesel" remains a classic to this day.
posted by clevershark at 12:28 PM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]

On reading these stories, I find it depressing that the magazine presents itself as so damn edgy but turns out to be so damn insipid.
posted by nasreddin at 3:21 PM on January 9

I know what you mean, but on further reflection, being as it is a magazine for teenage girls, I think it might actually strike the right balance between fun and edgy to be successful. Compare it to the other magazines that target teenage girls. You aren't going to get a sizeable number of teenagers of either sex to be hypercritical of the media that saturates their lives, and their education up to this point (junior high?) probably hasn't included any philosophy or deep critical analysis. So the magazine steps into a void in their emerging consciousness of the world. At the very least it gets them to question things.

Insipid? A bit. Is there a single page of Seventeen, Vogue, or Cosmopolitan that isn't?

As an aside, it is no surprise to me whatsoever that this magazine is Canadian. First, no investor is stupid enough to launch new magazines in the US anymore. All the "alt" stuff is on the web now. Secondly, the entire culture here is predicated on making sure no one questions anything and follows lockstep in their predetermined gender roles for their given socioeconomic status.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:40 PM on January 9, 2008

I'm man and I read Sassy and thought it was great, and currently read Bust. I might read this too.

I also read issues of Ebony from the 70s. You don't have to be in a magazine's dmeographic to enjoy it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:41 PM on January 9, 2008

I looked through the online blog for the magazine. It looked to me like it was written by middle-aged academic feminists. Nothing wrong with that, except I have a feeling it wouldn't appeal to a very large number of girls. I am a lifelong, unashamed feminist, and the word-splitting makes me want to tear my hair out!

Seems to me that this scolding tone, coupled with a lot of talk about queer issues and topics that demonstrate the oppression of others besides women, loses a lot of people. We've gone from the narrow Feminine Mystique (take that Myss Dick!) to this broad understanding of feminist issues and lost a lot of women along the way. In particular, working class women and single moms. Meanwhile the daughters of the 70's feminists have become gender republicans - Katha Pollit's term for wealthier women who revert to outdated gender roles once they become parents.

The magazine looks like a fine thing for punk girls, maybe urban older teen girls, budding activists. But I'm still looking for a feminist magazine that talks about women (all kinds, but not all oppressed people who share Our Struggle), showing us what's really going on, without the know-it-all tone. Such a magazine might explore things like wage issues, who takes FMLA leave and why, who doesn't, how the health care crisis affects women and girls, etc. Where women are thriving in the workplace, what businesses are women doing arts and otherwise, who are the great girls now in high school, who's doing outstanding service, etc, etc.

Sassy was great, if you were the kind of geeky girl who is cool now. There wasn't a lot in there for not-so-cute girls who were in the marching band, say, and really did want to fit in. This focus on art and culture, as if that's all we should aspire to do, can make some girls feel untalented, rather than brining in large numbers of girls.

I hope there is such a magazine, and I've just missed it.
posted by jimmietown softgirl at 12:47 PM on January 9, 2008 [4 favorites]

MaxWelton Have you ever read the essays on Kierkegaard in your typical car magazine?

Heh. That's sort of my point. I don't look in the pages of Literary Quarterly for tips on installing a ground effects package on a late model Toyota, either.

Although, I have to say we may be on to something. And we already have our first subscriber in PastaBagel!
posted by spacely_sprocket at 12:48 PM on January 9, 2008

I think that one of the things I (a twenty-year-old guy at the time) liked about Sassy was that it was funny. What most of my female feminist friends from university (who are now mommies creeping towards the big 4-0) wanted was to be treated with respect, and they also wanted to laugh at funny things.

I'm not so sure Shameless is all that funny. The 'brothels' piece at the top of the blog is a big red flag that hints the magazine will be more ideological in nature than idiosyncratic.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:01 PM on January 9, 2008

Have you ever read the essays on Kierkegaard in your typical car magazine?

Come to think of it, the first half of the car reviews that Jeremy Clarkson writes for The Times usually has nothing whatsoever to do with the car being reviewed. Often it has nothing to do with cars at all...
posted by clevershark at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2008

Yes, funny, it should be funny and entertaining! I wanted to say that, and got so caught up in my oppression I forgot to mention that. Shameless does look like it's kind of a drag.
posted by jimmietown softgirl at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2008

I'm sure yours differs. I no longer care. I've defined my terms.

I'm sure Mystyk considers himself to be an open-minded person, since most people do, which makes me, really, really curious about what his definition of open-minded looks like. (Sorry, I like to beat dead horses.) Hurrah to MeFi for some intelligent and maybe-not-so-intelligent but way amusing repartee.

As for feeding trolls, meh. I don't think this was a troll situation. Isn't one intentional byproduct of trolling that it makes everybody walk on eggshells wrt "don't feed the trolls" and disrupts the discussion that way, too? Are we allowed to educate dumbasses or not?

I would have liked to see a multi-link post here, since there has got to be at least one other intelligent teen girl zine out there. Right?

Okay, now the non-MetaTalky part of my comment:

The sometimes one-sided editorial tone of the blog made me keep expecting in my gut a Dworkin-esque, anti-sex agenda, but on my cursory view, most of those kinds of discussions had pretty reasonable give and take. I didn't dig very deep, though.

That New Moon mag looks awesome, too. Maybe I'll talk my SO into getting a subscription for her second cousin.
posted by Skwirl at 1:20 PM on January 9, 2008

It always annoys me when people talk about society being "post-feminist", because I look around me and wonder if I missed the bus to post-patriarchyland.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:40 PM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

Mystyk and others with similar reaction are rightfully worried that when women become aware of their overwhelming power, there is little role in society for men. In fact, the staff of this magazine serves as a microcosm of what men fear the world will become. Lots of smart, funny, attractive women who keep a guy or two around to help with the plumbing, or in this case "the tubes". Lots of men are afraid of this new world, because they don't understand it, at least not in its entirety. Men are vaguely aware that women want different things, and that women their age are often annoyed by some things, but they don't really know what specifically is annoying them or why.

I was just thinking that I fix things, and build furniture, and clean the house, and earn a good living, and take good care of our kids even on days when my wife wants to throw them (or herself) through a window. So now that I don't have kids, I guess I don't need her.

Except that she fixes things, and builds furniture, and clean the house, and earn a good living, and takes good care of our kids on days when I want to throw them (or myself) through a window. So I guess she doesn't need me either.

Good thing we figured out that relationships are, and should be, about want rather than need.
posted by davejay at 1:43 PM on January 9, 2008

So now that I don't have kids,

Fixed that for me.
posted by davejay at 1:43 PM on January 9, 2008

It always annoys me when people talk about society being "post-feminist", because I look around me and wonder if I missed the bus to post-patriarchyland.

It'll be along any minute. You do have the correct change, right?
posted by rtha at 1:44 PM on January 9, 2008

I know what you mean, but on further reflection, being as it is a magazine for teenage girls, I think it might actually strike the right balance between fun and edgy to be successful. Compare it to the other magazines that target teenage girls. You aren't going to get a sizeable number of teenagers of either sex to be hypercritical of the media that saturates their lives, and their education up to this point (junior high?) probably hasn't included any philosophy or deep critical analysis. So the magazine steps into a void in their emerging consciousness of the world. At the very least it gets them to question things.

Insipid? A bit. Is there a single page of Seventeen, Vogue, or Cosmopolitan that isn't?

No, of course the corporate teen press is worthless.

My problem is that the agglomeration of stereotypically PC language and attitudes, combined with a patronizing signposting of the Good Guys and the Bad Guys in every article, tends to stifle critical thought rather than encourage it.

I don't have any problem with gay liberation, feminism, anti-racism. (In fact, I wish old-style separatist radical feminism were resurgent). But as these movements become domesticated, they retain the impression that they are consummately radical and hence have the authority to legislate for radicalism. They also develop a carefully worked-out vocabulary ("people of color," "empowerment," "awareness," "speaking out") which in the aggregate homogenizes any argument. Even the standardized arrangement and usage of the words ensures real content is lost or suppressed. (I am sensitive to the political implications of words, and I am familiar with the good reasons why we ought to prefer "people of color" to "minorities.") If Elizabeth Cady Stanton were dropped into the contemporary activist scene, she would be entirely unable to participate--because the discourse of radicalism has become a force of its own, disconnected from any actual struggle.

The continuous hectoring and indignation, which is expected and legitimate in a communiqué from a real radical group, becomes mere handwringing in a mainstream magazine of this sort. And because the target demographic is predetermined to agree with these opinions, the bad habits of such faux-radical writing become even more reinforced. So the young readers of Shameless grow up to believe that you can only talk about the Struggle in terms etched in stone by uninspired academics, and that any deviation from the discursive norm (how dare you not capitalize Black!) is to be regarded as a political crime. This results in an unwillingness to challenge the standard liberal position for fear of being excluded; in other words, conformity.

This specific kind of domesticated radicalism is rooted in a deep unwillingness to challenge assumptions and exit established comfort zones, and it provides a convenient excuse to play power games (I would say it creates a panoptic space within radicalism). I imagine many of the people reading this are inclined to throw me in with mystyk--precisely because this kind of radicalism makes believe that there is no alternative. Either you talk like a Soviet propaganda minister or you support the misogynistic, racist, capitalist Powers That Be.

I would say it's better for these girls to watch FOX News or something, which will really attune them to the dangers of inbred political discourse.
posted by nasreddin at 1:55 PM on January 9, 2008 [5 favorites]

Being aware of language is really important - and dismissing that shit as PC is just a tool to silence real hurt and pain - but I agree with nasreddin. There has got to be a way to discuss these issues that doesn't alienate so many people.

I think a lot of the radicalism has adopted a sort of "tough love" kind of processing which works well for some people struggling with privilege, but can be really emotionally damaging for a lot of other people. To which the response is often "well, it is hard, they should struggle and hurt. And maybe that's true. But I've seen many friends, one after another, walk away from critically addressing racism, sexism, oppression, etc. because of the exclusive "club" it often seems to be.

At the same time, making people more comfortable isn't a defensible excuse for allowing problematic language to continue without being called out. Just wish people could have this debate/discussion without getting so goddamn heated all the time.
posted by lunit at 2:08 PM on January 9, 2008

Ugh. Hate that last sentence I just wrote. Dammit. Righteous anger is totally understandable. This is complicated, huh.
posted by lunit at 2:09 PM on January 9, 2008

nasreddin, if the "the discourse of radicalism has become a force of its own, disconnected from any actual struggle," what, then, is the discourse of a "real radical group?" Is radicalism, faux or otherwise, the proper measure of Shameless Magazine? What leads you to believe it is headed by "uninspired academics" who allow no discursive deviation?

There are babies in that bathwater.
posted by xod at 2:34 PM on January 9, 2008

My favorite line to say during conversations like this, " so you're a feminist, how cute"
posted by hexxed at 3:09 PM on January 9, 2008

I imagine many of the people reading this are inclined to throw me in with mystyk--precisely because this kind of radicalism makes believe that there is no alternative.

I wasn't sure I was going to come back to this thread. I needed to "cool down," for lack of better terms. I was quite edgy when I wrote my definition of "feminism" far above. I certainly wouldn't have written it in any way the same had I started with a definition in my very first comment. Instead, I was defending every word not only from quite a few insults but also from the faulty context in which it was being interpreted. If you believe I'm a liar and a pig from essentially the beginning, you've already set the stage to ignore anything I might say that could change your mind, regardless of the accuracy of your belief.

The images I associate with the term feminism aren't the encyclopedia ones; that much is not disputed. I've encountered self-described feminists who don't fit my definition as well as self-described non-feminists who do. I had to make a decision on what a heated term meant to me, and I chose one that requires a higher threshhold than your average one for the term. The up-side is that this requires me to evaluate every person individually rather than blanket them with a term before gathering the facts - a courtesy that was never extended to me.

What I saw was a magazine that was putting forth spin that distorts its readers perception to believe that all men are just sexist, immoral, porn addicted, unworthy swine with no redeeming values. That fits within the sights of what feminism is in my mental picture which, by its own strictness, is a relatively exclusive club. Before you jump on that, keep in mind that I'm only talking about what it has become today, not what it once was or the principles it was founded upon. I'm all in favor of genuine equality - racially, sexually, sexual orientationally, etc. - but when a magazine promotes a view that far out it better at least have some facts to back it up. It's the same problem Intelligent Design has in competing with Evolution; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Many of the people who ridiculed me without caring what I really thought will have moved on by now. Those people will feel superior, and yet will leave learning little. For the rest of you, perhaps this can give you the opportunity to see from the other side. I never went looking for the spotlight (as some insisted) but rather was trying to put forth a view in a conversation. That the conversation shifted does not modify original intent.
posted by mystyk at 3:31 PM on January 9, 2008

[Shameless is] "a magazine [...] putting forth spin that distorts its readers perception to believe that all men are just sexist, immoral, porn addicted, unworthy swine with no redeeming values. [...] when a magazine promotes a view that far out it better at least have some facts to back it up."

How about we start with your accusations backed with examples?
posted by xod at 3:42 PM on January 9, 2008

I apologize for my snarky comments towards you earlier, and I'm genuinely interested in what exactly you find offensive about the magazine. I do not see the stereotyping of men that you apparently see. For example, the article on brothels in Vancouver would have been ripe for commentary on men-as-pigs, but instead the author writes in an open-ended way:

"What do you think? Is sex work inherently harmful? Would decriminalising it make it better? As feminists, should we support women’s choices to do whatever they would like to do to make a living, or should we be opposed to sex work in any form? Can people who have no first-hand experience of sex work (like me) really speak to this topic?"

The entry on Gendered Heroism takes issue with a POSITIVE stereotype of women. The piece on Hillary's cheek pinching called out specific men's behavior, not their behavior as a group - and also called out a woman's sexist behavior. This piece defends gay men, who are, in fact, men. So, please point out the male-bashing you see.
posted by desjardins at 3:46 PM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

all men are just sexist, immoral, porn addicted, unworthy swine with no redeeming values.

Are we reading the same magazine? Because I'm not seeing this. I've only read the front page, not the archives.
posted by rtha at 3:50 PM on January 9, 2008

That's sassy!
posted by miss lynnster at 3:58 PM on January 9, 2008

I think, mystyk, that if you have a problem with people who assert that all men are just sexist, immoral, porn addicted, unworthy swine with no redeeming values then you might want to just say that you don't like people who hate men. Or, you don't like people who are jerks, or crazy, or whatever. But you can't just declare that you're going to use the word "feminist" to describe such people (if, indeed, they exist). Words don't work that way.
posted by moxiedoll at 4:02 PM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

As a grownup feminist, my heart is warmed by alternative teen mags like this... but then I remember actually being thirteen, and why I read teen magazines in the first place, and I realize that this kind of wholesome substitute is never going to replace the real thing. It's not like I only read seventeen and ym - I read books and (certain select parts of) the newspaper... but I also read teen magazines, because I felt like I was really gross and weird and failing at being a girl, and those magazines promised instructions as to how I could become pretty and popular and normal. Of course they don't - it's a trap, and magazines like that only make you feel worse - but providing a special magazine for teens about politics and art, while a worthwhile endeavor, in no way provides a substitute for the kind of information that girls think they'll get from a beauty rag.
posted by moxiedoll at 4:09 PM on January 9, 2008

But you can't just declare that you're going to use the word "feminist" to describe such people (if, indeed, they exist).

They do exist, and tend to call themselves feminists, unfortunately for real feminists.
posted by oaf at 4:32 PM on January 9, 2008

And there's an article in a back issue whose first paragraph implies that you shouldn't let any old men on the Bloor line sit next to you because they're probably pervs.
posted by oaf at 4:34 PM on January 9, 2008

Um, what, oaf? The article you linked recounts a very specific story about a specific man and a 14-year-old girl. I would strongly advise any 14-year-old girls I know not to sit next to strange men either. Go down just two paragraphs - TWO - and the article calls it a MYTH that men are naturally inclined towards rape. This hardly supports your thesis that they think all men are perverts.
posted by desjardins at 4:40 PM on January 9, 2008

oaf, what are you talking about?
you read this anecdote:

The guy is well into his fifties. He has his arm around the woman’s shoulder and he’s whispering in her ear. “This looks strange,” I say to myself, because he’s so much older and bigger than her. Then I realize she is looking directly into my eyes. “Wow,” I think. “She’s young. Just a girl.” I return her look; her eyes are wide. This feels wrong. The dude doesn’t notice me, because he’s still nuzzled into her neck. I mouth the words “Do you know him?” With the slightest motion, the girl shakes her head. I pat the seat beside me, and she practically jumps across the car to sit with me, while the man squirms in silent embarrassment. She whispers to me that she was scared and felt stupid because he was saying awful things to her and she didn’t know what to do. She is 14 years old.

.... and you understood it to mean "you shouldn't let any old men on the Bloor line sit next to you because they're probably pervs"?!?!?

Maybe you should read it again. I'll wait.
posted by moxiedoll at 4:42 PM on January 9, 2008

smart, strong, sassy young women.

I really hate the word 'sassy.'
posted by jonmc at 4:44 PM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Maybe you should read it again. I'll wait.

Maybe you should read it at least once. I'll wait.
posted by oaf at 4:48 PM on January 9, 2008

It won't matter how much we read it, because the text you claim to see just isn't there, any more than the story is about space aliens or unicorns.
posted by desjardins at 5:00 PM on January 9, 2008

While waiting, I've found more silliness in the form of language prescriptivism. Also, singing the praises of gender discrimination.
posted by oaf at 5:00 PM on January 9, 2008

It won't matter how much we read it, because the text you claim to see just isn't there, any more than the story is about space aliens or unicorns.

You're just wrong about that; it does imply what I said above. Sorry—better luck next time, perhaps?
posted by oaf at 5:02 PM on January 9, 2008

Well, how about this, Oaf. You said the first paragraphs implies that "first paragraph implies that you shouldn't let any old men on the Bloor line sit next to you because they're probably pervs." I've read the first paragraph, and I'm not seeing it. Instead of being snide, why don't you explain how you got that idea, and why it's not important that several paragraphs later the author calls the idea that all men are predisposed to rape a "myth."
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:03 PM on January 9, 2008

Astro Zombie, keep in mind that this magazine is aimed at 14-year-old girls, not you or me.

It's also not like the Toronto subway is particularly dangerous or crime-ridden.
posted by oaf at 5:08 PM on January 9, 2008

That doesn't answer my question. The first paragraph is a true story about a teenage girl who is being hit on by a much older man. How did you extrapolate this story to mean that the author is suggesting all old men are perverted? As they say in school, show your work, because you've insisted it's there.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:10 PM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Or, rather, all old men on the Toronto subway.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:11 PM on January 9, 2008

Apparently I need to explain to you what "implicit" means.
posted by oaf at 5:11 PM on January 9, 2008

Nah, just look it up yourself. I'm still reading through the first GiveWell MeTa thread.
posted by oaf at 5:12 PM on January 9, 2008

What the fuck are you on about, oaf?

I read that paragraph too, and unless you're unable to understand that, hey, sometimes it IS inappropriate for 50-year-old men to hit on 14-year-old girls, I don't see what the fucking problem is. And the language prescriptivism (complaining about the mainstreaming of a domestic violence term) and the Fair Trade for women links are pretty unobjectionable, unless you already have a pretty goddamned pronounced bias against progressives or women or both.
posted by klangklangston at 5:13 PM on January 9, 2008

Yes you do. Because, as far as I am concerned, you have ascribed an implication to the story that isn't there.

Again, show the implication, rather than simply inisting it is there.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:13 PM on January 9, 2008

You're still losing, oaf.

From the supposed gender discrimination article:

" In communities where men control the economy, this can mean that revenue from fair-trade coffee doesn’t reach women and children.... A group of women in the Northern Peruvian Andes have come up with a surprisingly simple but bold solution: they’ve formed their own coffee collective, "

So, is it your assertion that they're singing the praises of gender discrimination against women (and children)? Well, that doesn't make sense. Yet THERE IS NO gender discrimination against men in this situation.
posted by desjardins at 5:18 PM on January 9, 2008

mystyk writes "Nobody should give a crap that Chris Matthews supposedly pinched Hillary Clinton's cheek."

He did? I'm the last thing from a knee-jerk feminist, but that's pretty condescending to do to anyone, much less a US Senator and presidential candidate. If he did that to me I'd kick him in the nuts (I am a guy, however, so he probably wouldn't do that to me, which really is the whole point).
posted by krinklyfig at 5:22 PM on January 9, 2008

I gather they don't publish poutine recipes.
posted by Tube at 5:24 PM on January 9, 2008

Some things in this thread make me proud of metafilter, and then there are others that make me understand why the fuck we need magazines like this. I don't know whether to be alarmed or amused at the amount of portentious, paranoid text spilled about the terrifying political implications of a teenage girl's magazine with an emphasis on feminism. You'd think they were selling castrating knives in the classified section in back.
posted by emjaybee at 5:35 PM on January 9, 2008

Yet THERE IS NO gender discrimination against men in this situation.

from the article: instead of selling their harvest alongside male relatives, they’ve been selling it through a women-only collective
posted by oaf at 5:51 PM on January 9, 2008

I read that paragraph too, and unless you're unable to understand that, hey, sometimes it IS inappropriate for 50-year-old men to hit on 14-year-old girls, I don't see what the fucking problem is.

The implication is that it happened to her, so you'd better be super-careful when you're riding the TTC or you might be next. I mean, sure, you could pretend it's not there if you ignore the alarmist tone of that paragraph.

why the fuck we need magazines like this

We don't. This magazine's purpose could be served if it were reasonably cool-headed. Alarmism is not The Better Way.
posted by oaf at 5:57 PM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Bullshit. Unless that is the implication of every story about every crime ever told.

You've obviously got a problem with this magazine, but you're reading something into the story that simply isn't there. Just because it seems obvious to you doesn't mean that it exists at all. Despite repeated requests that you demonstrate your supposition, the best you can do is sputter that it's there, it's really really there, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass muster. The fact that you see it, but can't show it, says more about your assumptions about this magazine than it does about the magazine itself.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:03 PM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

oaf, I don't see a blanket condemnation of all men, all older men, or the TTC in that article at all. The article didn't mention the subway again after that anecdote until the final paragraph.

Although it’s never, ever pleasant to think about rape, one of the most powerful methods for changing beliefs about sexual violence is to visualize a scenario in which you manage to stop it. This does not mean you have to become paranoid and see danger everywhere. Neither is this strategy (or any kind of formal training) a guarantee that if you do face a violent situation, you’ll be able to prevent it. What it does mean is that you can work through a few scenarios on your own time, in your own safe space. Every so often, in my own head, I’m struttin’ around with a shiny pink Taser lashed ’round the top of some thighhigh white boots, walking a Siberian tiger and drop-kickin’ nasty guys all over town. But resisting sexual violence is usually not so spectacular — or stylin’. Sometimes, like for that young woman riding the subway, resistance unfolds in silent glances and whispers.

What I've bolded seems like pretty sensible advice to me. In fact, when I was 14, I was approached by a flasher shortly after working through a scenario of my own, which meant I didn't shirink away, blame myself and feel ashamed when it happened, but swore at him loudly in French and English as people on the street turned around to see what was happening. (I don't know what kind of reaction he was hoping for from a girl half his size, but he did look shocked.)

That said, everything between the opening and closing paragraphs of that article was rather turgid. I hope the magazine finds a consistent and accessible voice without dumbing things down.
posted by maudlin at 6:03 PM on January 9, 2008

Maybe you should read it at least once. I'll wait.

Okay. I read it (I haven't gotten to the coffee article yet).

I think, oaf, that what you say the article is implying, you are, instead, inferring.

In the entire article, I didn't see anything about how horrible all men are. I read about specific men committing specific acts - and, the point of the article, women who resist those acts, and how they do that. The article didn't seem to me to focus on men much at all, really. Because it was about women.

Most women (in Western industrialized nations, I'll qualify, since those are the ones I'm most familiar with) are socialized to be polite, and to give the benefit of the doubt. We are raised to not be rude to people. In general, not being rude is a good thing. The downside is that it can keep us from saying "No!" or "Stop!" when we should, because we value being polite more than we value our own safety. That is fucked up.

The article doesn't "imply" that old guys on the subway are pervs. The article states that the author saw an older, larger man sitting with a young teenager. Please explain how that implies that all older men on the Bloor line are pervs.
posted by rtha at 6:07 PM on January 9, 2008

(brushes away the foggy, fetid steam of concern trolling)

Phew. chunking express, I forgot to say, thanks for the post, and I'll definitely add this to my reading list.
posted by emjaybee at 6:09 PM on January 9, 2008

oaf: instead of selling their harvest alongside male relatives, they’ve been selling it through a women-only collective

Yes; their other alternative is not getting any money at all, because men control the economy.
posted by desjardins at 6:14 PM on January 9, 2008

> .... and you understood it to mean "you shouldn't let any old men on the Bloor line sit next to you because they're probably pervs"?!?!?

But we are. No one's arguing about that, surely.
posted by jfuller at 6:15 PM on January 9, 2008

Too many of their articles (at least the ones they've made available) read like some sort of handbook for how you are going to be oppressed and what to do about it. That doesn't lend them much credibility.

The article states that the author saw an older, larger man sitting with a young teenager.

And it stops there. I guess I just imagined the part about the whispered lewd comments.

I don't see a blanket condemnation of all men
Please explain how that implies that all older men on the Bloor line are pervs.

I didn't say there was a blanket condemnation of all men. But enjoy beating that straw man. He clearly deserves it, and it's not because he's made of straw.
posted by oaf at 6:26 PM on January 9, 2008

All right, we're not going to convince oaf, and he's not going to convince us. Perhaps we should move on.

I'm actually okay with the turgid tone of the stories. I think there is a tendency to try for a quippy, breezy style in writing for teenagers, but many of the politically interested kids I know -- and I was one -- are already reading pretty dry material.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:28 PM on January 9, 2008

I'm not saying you shouldn't be wary of anyone—male or female—who singles you—male or female—out and sits right next to you on the subway when there are only a handful of people in it. You should, but that's not what the article's after.
posted by oaf at 6:30 PM on January 9, 2008

Is there any point starting a MetaTalk thread now?
posted by chunking express at 6:32 PM on January 9, 2008

from the article: instead of selling their harvest alongside male relatives, they’ve been selling it through a women-only collective

Uh huh. Could it perhaps be a reaction to an economy that excludes women? Could it be that the women who decided to do this did so because they were tired have not seeing adequate compensation from the fruits of their labor?

This doesn't address the coffee sector specifically, but it still has relevance:

Work conditions for women are disadvantageous as compared to men, not only in terms of the quality of the work available to women and the amount of income they receive, but also because of the longer work days and the lack of physical and legal protections. In urban areas, women earn 54 percent of the income earned by men, even when equally qualified. Of the total underemployed population, 30.2 percent are male while 50.8 percent are female. At the national level, 66.6 percent of the men are adequately employed, versus only 33.4 percent of the women.

Economic opportunities and labor conditions for women : perspectives from Latin America -- Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil 04/01/2003 (.pdf)

It's not exactly unknown, or anti-male, to note that many cultures in the world still hold to the men-are-in-charge way of thinking and living. This means that if you, as a woman, work for wages, you will turn over all or most of your pay to your husband or father, who will decide what it gets spent on. It's disingenuous to pretend that most women on the planet aren't economically disadvantaged because of their gender, and that organizing a women's co-op isn't a specific reaction to that.
posted by rtha at 6:36 PM on January 9, 2008

Uh huh. Could it perhaps be a reaction to an economy that excludes women?

And that makes it not discrimination how exactly? (You're not going to be able to answer this truthfully.)
posted by oaf at 7:04 PM on January 9, 2008

No, I can totally answer this truthfully.

It's discrimination.

But where you see it as discrimination against men, I see it as discrimination against people who have taken these women's labor and not compensated them adequately.

Let's say we have a factory. The workers work long hours making widgets. The owners hugely underpay their workers, and what wages they do pay, the require the workers to spend most of at the company store.

The workers get sick of this. They're good at their jobs, and they know that the owners - in addition to underpaying them - are skimming profits and not putting anything towards plant improvements, maintenance, and the like. So they decide to go off and start their own business, and they form a co-op. It's smaller than the old factory, but because they're working for themselves, and therefore have a huge self-interest in making their new business grow and thrive, they ramp up production and are soon making really good widgets, and they're making a better living than they were before.

Have the workers discriminated against the owners? Sure. Good for them.
posted by rtha at 7:31 PM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]

HELP HELP MEN ARE BEING OPPRESSED!
posted by klangklangston at 7:37 PM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]

What I saw was a magazine that was putting forth spin that distorts its readers perception to believe that all men are just sexist, immoral, porn addicted, unworthy swine with no redeeming values. That fits within the sights of what feminism is in my mental picture which, by its own strictness, is a relatively exclusive club. Before you jump on that, keep in mind that I'm only talking about what it has become today, not what it once was or the principles it was founded upon. I'm all in favor of genuine equality - racially, sexually, sexual orientationally, etc. - but when a magazine promotes a view that far out it better at least have some facts to back it up.

I get what you mean, but I highly doubt you bat an eyelash at the hundreds of magazines that preen our teenaged daughters to be ninny-headed, hyper-real caricatures of femininity.

I tell you, those magazines might not be so "extreme," since they are the mainstream, but they are much dangerous than feminism could ever be, even your whacked out definition of feminism.
posted by milarepa at 8:02 PM on January 9, 2008

Seems really interesting. Definitely a good link, despite the flames.

Although I am not, nor have I ever been, a teenage girl, I do wonder whether it's a bit too strident to do anything besides preach to the choir. It seems to take on premise that the reader already agrees with the viewpoint expressed; most of the articles don't seem to do much arguing or convincing.

Now, perhaps that's exactly their goal -- maybe they're not trying/interested in arguing or convincing anyone, but rather just want something that people who feel a certain way and are disgusted with mainstream magazines as a result can subscribe to. But I think that they could do more with it, if they wanted to.

But anyway, I certainly wish them lots of luck; anything that chips away at the steaming pile of horror that is Seventeen is great in my book.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:09 PM on January 9, 2008

I know nothing about the Shameless magazine but I'd definitely recommend "Shameless" the tv show.
posted by caelumluna at 10:11 PM on January 10, 2008