At the age of 20, I knew the exact day when the new issues of Cosmopolitan, Elle, Marie-Claire, and Glamour were due to come out each month and bought them all. Today I can’t get through two pages of any of them without feeling like I’m losing faith in humanity.
If that isn’t a successful self-improvement project, I don’t know what is.
It’s more a self-improvment evolution than a project.
LikeLike
It’s more an evolution than a project.
LikeLike
A project is intentional. This was intentional.
LikeLike
So when you stop to read those slut magazines?
Advice to women: reading those magazines doesn’t make you cool for 2013 men.
LikeLike
The sex-related part of these magazines is their only redeeming characteristic, actually.
The language, however, oh, the horrible language. And the relationship advice, and the obnoxious chatty tone, and the ultra-stupid advertisement, and “the guy experts” saying the most stupid things ever.
Wow, I still remember quite a bit. 🙂
LikeLike
Okay, but when you stop reading those slut magazines. I just want to see how this was a project.
LikeLike
Corrected:
Okay, but when you stop reading those slut magazines? I just want to see how this was a project.
LikeLike
I just red it. This was clearly a project,
LikeLike
Those slut (allegedly “women empowering”) magazines are so sexist.
LikeLike
Playboy articles are way less stupid than those slut magazines.
LikeLike
In Occident, we have the inverse phenomenon. Many university graduates women do a self-improvment project about superficiality. They often begin to read those slut magazines when they begin to be in the work market.
LikeLike
What’s your take about the runaway train disaster in Québec?
LikeLike
I’m not sure I know about it.
LikeLike
This Burkhardt fellow should be under investigation and probably in jail. First, he creates this unconscionable one-man team policy and then he is not to blame?? What a jerk!
LikeLike
“Some have questioned whether the one-person crew could have played a role in the derailment, but Burkhardt went so far as to suggest that having fewer employees on board can be safer.
“We think the one-man crews are safer than two-men crews because there’s less exposure for employee injuries, less distraction,” he said.”
– SERIOUSLY??? I hope the people of Quebec do not let that slide!
LikeLike
That’s exactly the source of the anger about this right now. Don’t worry. This is not finished.
LikeLike
It’s a mysterious phenomenon known as “Coming of age” 🙂
LikeLike
Exactly! Bildungsprozeß is a concept of a conscious self-fashioning that originates in the Enlightenment era and that by no coincidence was the subject of my doctoral dissertation. 🙂
LikeLike
I read a few issues of Cosmo as a teenager. I didn’t realize until much later just how strange some of the advice sounded. http://www.cracked.com/article_19066_7-psychotic-pieces-relationship-advice-from-cosmo.html
LikeLike
Cleo, too, was another Australian one. They weren’t very good because they didn’t prescribe experimentalism. I mean, as a meaningful framework.
LikeLike
What is experimentalism?
LikeLike
Sorry, I did not say much as I am waking up. I meant Nietzschean experimentalism. You can’t just accept how things really be, or accept that that is how they have to be. You need to start your project in life by testing reality to see what’s really there.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Also, it’s weird that those girl magazines don’t give you advice as to how to handle a parent who has hair trigger emotional reactions and is on the verge of suicide. See:
http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/chapter-24.html
People kept telling me that to acknowledge the truth was an expression of too much “sensitivity”. Hm.
LikeLike
What is really curious is that they almost never mention parents at all. I’m guessing that it’s a very sore topic for their regular audience.
LikeLike
The whole genre is for superficial ego boosting. It serves a point in giving you a kind of general identity in an age of dissolution of identities. It’s a kind of narcissistic buffering. It’s illusion, but still buffering — and up to that point, defense.
Reality is really very different. It’s not in the capitalist genre at all. Things go on and one has to deal with them.
I am currently reading a book, for review, set in the early nineties, and it reminds me to some degree of the structure of gender relations back then. Actually, I caught up with them by the late nineties, and things were sordid. Science and reality itself were held to be the realm of males, whereas women were considered to distort reality, not unlike how they are considered today.
To point to an aspect of reality and say, “this needs to be fixed,” meant we were overstepping our bounds and taking on a masculine role, which wasn’t permitted.
Now. Think about it. My father was suicidal and I wasn’t allowed to point this out. Whenever I tried to do so — and the occasions on which I tried were numerous — I was told I had emotions and awareness. These qualities were inadvisable, wrong and evil, or at times simply pathological. One shouldn’t have emotions or awareness. In our society, that is akin to practicing witchcraft.
LikeLike
“The whole genre is for superficial ego boosting. It serves a point in giving you a kind of general identity in an age of dissolution of identities. ”
– You are absolutely right. For me, these magazines offered the only identity among the ones I was seeing that was attractive. Among the endlessly self-sacrificing women, their message of joie de vivre and taking care of oneself was very refreshing. Of course, later I found another way to enjoy life and take care of myself than through buying stuff the magazines peddled.
LikeLike
The main purpose of these magazines is to sell stuff. Not just things: an insecure state of mind that makes it easier to convince readers of the magazine that they need whatever commodity is being pushed at the moment in order to fix their ‘imperfections’.
It therefore surprises me not at all that you grew out of reading them; because in the process of change you acquired a different and more satisfying measure of self.
It doesn’t surprise me that so many women do read them though; although the magazines’ indicators of success are very superficial (and focusing upon them self destructive) that in itself is kind of attractive to many, being as personality and life changes are almost invariably hard and painful!
I’m rather baffled by David Glendron’s epithet of ‘slut’ magazines, because in general they push a very conservative view of life, expecting all readers to be desirous of a heterosexually monogamous paired lifestyle, with ring, house, wedding, 2.4 kids etc.
LikeLike
“I’m rather baffled by David Glendron’s epithet of ‘slut’ magazines, because in general they push a very conservative view of life, expecting all readers to be desirous of a heterosexually monogamous paired lifestyle, with ring, house, wedding, 2.4 kids etc.”
– I think he was referring to the sex advice they always offer. From what I still remember, these magazines are aimed at young women who work in offices and promote a party and dating lifestyle that has nothing to do with weddings or children. This isn’t the scary Women’s World, this is aimed at a very different audience.
LikeLike
“I’m rather baffled by David Glendron’s epithet of ‘slut’ magazines, because in general they push a very conservative view of life, expecting all readers to be desirous of a heterosexually monogamous paired lifestyle, with ring, house, wedding, 2.4 kids etc.”
That’s why I use it.
LikeLike
Btw, using it against patriarchal women as an insult doesn’t work (from feminist pov), but rather strengthens the word, gives it even more legitimacy. If even (supposedly) feminist men use it…
Using sex-shaming words is one of The Anti-Feminist things a man can do. Wouldn’t believe this man’s claims of feminism afterwards. Before, in blogosphere, some (claiming to be) liberal men were glad to call Sarah Palin sexist names. At last finding the nirvana of throwing around all the sexist terms they couldn’t before without losing their status of liberal and feminist men.
LikeLike
“Using sex-shaming words is one of The Anti-Feminist things a man can do.”
– “Sex-shaming” only exists in the lives of people who think sex is shameful. Shame is always located inside, not outside. “Slut” is a word that is the perfect gauge of people’s prissiness. The ones who use it are prissy and so are who are scandalized by it. The person who uses it and the person who feels something when it’s used share the same basic belief that sex is dirty.
LikeLike
What I said is not connected to where shame resides. “Sex-shaming” does help to create unhealthy climate, make women more unsure and worse feeling than without it.
Another link:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/chilling-activists-private.html
“Following their guilty sentence for the dumping of 18.5bn gallons of toxic waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Chevron is amassing the personal information of the environmentalists and attorneys who fought against them in an effort to prove ‘conspiracy.’
LikeLike
““Sex-shaming” does help to create unhealthy climate, make women more unsure and worse feeling than without it.”
– You cannot make an adult person insecure. Neither can you make them feel anything. I believe we should all analyze our own contribution to an unhealthy climate surrounding sexuality. A negative emotional response to words like “slut” and “whore” is a symptom that one is definitely contributing.
This is not something that’s done to us. This is something we do to ourselves because the guilt and shame are already there. Words just trigger it.
LikeLike
Well you can make adult people feel stuff, certainly, for example in boot camp where the human mind is broken down and then built up again. Shaming is an effective way to break people down. Thing is, it has become common to take the broken down and vulnerable state as the normal state for humans. That sense of vulnerability that requires, “I should not be called this or that,” comes from having already been pulpified. If you’re not pulp you don’t bother, but if you are then everything hurts and offends.
It is now common for people who are anti-feminists to object that the word feminism and the word patriarchy are shaming words, targeting the male sex. If you want to know why they downvote your videos for using this word in the subject line, this is why.
I would say the probable reason is they have become at least partially pulpified, Thing is, when you embrace an ideology of essentialism, that’s going to happen to you anyway, it just takes a small change in the aquarium temperature and things not longer seem so stable or reliable. They’re out of kilter, so you go looking for the movers and shakers who might have made it so.
I think the problems, when we have them, are always close to home though, and rarely have as much to do with ideology as we suppose. Ideology just determines whether a remedy is provided or denied. Words can trigger all sorts of reactions when a solution is not available or cannot be recognized.
There are wounds and salt can be rubbed into them. But the wounds and the salt are different.
The point is to un-pulpify oneself.
You can’t do it by listening to a lot of self-justifying ideology, though.
You would seal an already infected wound.
LikeLike
I prefer the articles about goblins and female rapists
http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00018205.html
LikeLike
Yes, these bump watches are really insipid. I wonder why people’s lives are so lacking in excitement that they hunt after details of strangers’ pregnancies.
LikeLike
Yes. People’s imaginations are limited.
LikeLike
What annoys me about the term is that it’s such a thought-terminating cliche that gives no useful information. With all the posts David made about those magazines, I know very little about why he dislikes them. He did say they’re sexist, but otherwise? Slut slut slut. Might as well listen to a dog bark, for all the useful information I’m getting out of it.
LikeLike
FD explained a lot better what the magazines are about. They are just a way of selling clothes, cosmetics, etc by making one believe she is buying a certain kind of identity.
LikeLike
I understood David is against them because patriarchal women read them and he thinks that had those women heard a man call them sluts, they would have understood that men disapprove of their worldview and so would change their wrong patriarchal behavior. I don’t understand why he thinks it would work though.
LikeLike
Interesting! The magazines are heavily into sexual enjoyment, though , so it’s questionable how patriarchal one can be while reading them.
We can see that David’s strategy totally works, however. We are all busily discussing him even when he isn’t here. 🙂 This is a brilliant attention-grabbing strategy. 🙂
LikeLike
Exactly! 🙂
LikeLike
But they won’t do that, David. Unless they’re a) reading what you write and b) consider you important enough in their social circle for your opinion to matter one jot, they’ll just mentally label you as an unimportant asshole and ignore you. So all you manage to do is annoy people – probably not even the people you’re aiming the slur at
LikeLike
What is happening with comments here, btw? Nested comments don’t seem to work in this thread any more.
LikeLike
I have no idea. I haven’t changed anything or messed with the layout in any way but people keep saying they are having problems with commenting.
Does anybody know what’s going on?
LikeLike
It only seems to happen for this particular thread, so doubt you did anything since I guess that’d show up in all comment threads. But I don’t know much about blogging.
LikeLike
test
LikeLike
Stille, I have the same problem.
LikeLike
“I understood David is against them because patriarchal women read them and he thinks that had those women heard a man call them sluts, they would have understood that men disapprove of their worldview and so would change their wrong patriarchal behavior.”
That’s accurate, but it would be even more efficient if women would also do the same thing.
LikeLike
// it would be even more efficient if women would also do the same thing.
What thing? Tell patriarchal women they are “sluts”? They would tell me I am one since f.e. I don’t think sex outside of a marriage is a problem. And they, unlike me in this example, would be the *only* ones to use the word “correctly”. “Slut” =/= sexist or patriarchal. It means “sexual.”
And why use this word, when you really mean “patriarchal”? Women aren’t stupid, including patriarchal ones.
Also, if I want a culture in which women’s sexuality won’t be used against them, I must not behave differently myself already in the present. Using this swear word is a counterproductive behavior. You can not destroy the master’s house with his tools. Sexism is not fought against via being a sexist yourself. Why is it so difficult to understand?
Another example: you are gay and know somebody who is homophobic. To snap him out of his bad ways, you decide to sexually harass him. Will this person and other (probably unsure about the issue) people in the environment be less or more homophobic? Three guesses.
Calling patriarchal women “sluts” in reality does achieve something imo:
A – confirms their belief that being one is the most horrible thing and that ALL men think so, even supposedly liberal ones
B – enforcing the view of liberals as hypocrites, who want to get laid themselves so pretend to be for “free love”, but are super happy to use patriarchal swear words, showing their real face. It leads to:
C – if everybody believes in patriarchal ideas, it means conservative worldview is the only possible one, as it presents universal patriarchal human nature
D – if liberals use this word against women they dislike, conservatives are right to use it against women *they* dislike, f.e. those who take birth control pills. I am rather for striving for a world, in which s— word will be dropped like n— word, even though sexism and racism (still?) will remain.
LikeLike
“What thing? Tell patriarchal women they are “sluts”?”
Yes.
“They would tell me I am one since f.e. I don’t think sex outside of a marriage is a problem.”
Unless you are a vulgar women who have sex with violent idiot men (and I have no big deal with BDSM) by purpose, you’re not a slut for me.
They would tell me I am one since f.e. I don’t think sex outside of a marriage is a problem. And they, unlike me in this example, would be the *only* ones to use the word “correctly”. “Slut” =/= sexist or patriarchal. It means “sexual.” ”
It means sexual for patriarchal people because sex is bad for them, unless if women are exploited. And patriarchal people are those who use these kind of slurs against you for shaming purposes.
“Women aren’t stupid, including patriarchal ones. ”
Yeah, patriarchal ones are stupid and I hate them so much, so I use their tactics (recall that they love generally very much this fucktard of Rush Limbaugh) because rational ones could not work with them.
“if I want a culture in which women’s sexuality won’t be used against them, I must not behave differently myself already in the present. Using this swear word is a counterproductive behavior. You can not destroy the master’s house with his tools.”
The master’s house tools works very well and this works way better than rational persuasion.
“Sexism is not fought against via being a sexist yourself.”
They are the sexists, not me. And this is not only because they use sexist slurs.
“you are gay and know somebody who is homophobic. To snap him out of his bad ways, you decide to sexually harass him”
1) Homophobes are not necessarily sex abusers, so this is not like my tactic.
2) Sexual harassment is a crime, even though the victim is homophobic. Using sexist slurs is rarely criminal.
“A – confirms their belief that being one is the most horrible thing and that ALL men think so, even supposedly liberal ones”
This is what I want.
“B – enforcing the view of liberals as hypocrites, who want to get laid themselves so pretend to be for “free love”, but are super happy to use patriarchal swear words, showing their real face. It leads to:”
I’m not a liberal. I don’t care about how liberals are viewed.
“C – if everybody believes in patriarchal ideas, it means conservative worldview is the only possible one, as it presents universal patriarchal human nature”
Patriarchal fucktards use those slurs because they know that the conservative worldview is not the only one. At least, they know something…
“D – if liberals use this word against women they dislike, conservatives are right to use it against women *they* dislike”
Liberals should use it against those who use it as their main argument, i.e. conservatives. Liberals hate women anarchists and radfems but they would not use that kind of slurs against women anarchists and radfems because those are not patriarchal people.
“I am rather for striving for a world, in which s— word will be dropped like n— word, even though sexism and racism (still?) will remain.”
If Obama continues to be so embarrassing for Black people all around the world, I will use the N word against him some day.
LikeLike
“A – confirms their belief that being one is the most horrible thing and that ALL men think so, even supposedly liberal ones
B – enforcing the view of liberals as hypocrites, who want to get laid themselves so pretend to be for “free love”, but are super happy to use patriarchal swear words, showing their real face. It leads to:
C – if everybody believes in patriarchal ideas, it means conservative worldview is the only possible one, as it presents universal patriarchal human nature”
– Let’s not infantilize women.
LikeLike
I hate those magazines for the same reasons than Clarissa, so I had nothing else to add.
LikeLike
I have no remorse to vomit misogynistic slurs to mysogynistic institution slike “women” (sic) magazines. They deserve it.
LikeLike
…institutions like…
LikeLike
// “A – confirms their belief that being one is the most horrible thing and that ALL men think so, even supposedly liberal ones”
This is what I want.
Wait. Can you explain why you want it? I meant it will confirm their belief that ALL men look down on sexual women.
// If Obama continues to be so embarrassing for Black people all around the world, I will use the N word against him some day.
How are his political decisions connected to the color of his skin?
LikeLike
“I meant it will confirm their belief that ALL men look down on sexual women.”
– A person who has this belief is so impossibly stupid that I wouldn’t worry about their beliefs or lack thereof at all. They are pursuing their own goals in entertaining this belief, so who cares?
LikeLike
“I meant it will confirm their belief that ALL men look down on sexual women.”
It would confirmed their belief that all non patriarchal people look down on patriachal women.
“How are his political decisions connected to the color of his skin?”
I said that because he’s like a White President and because he’s embarrassing for Black people all around the world.
LikeLike
“I said that because he’s like a White President and because he’s embarrassing for Black people all around the world.”
– Let’s not speak for “Black people all around the world.” I’m sure they can figure what embarrasses them and what doesn’t on their own.
LikeLike
My self-improvement project has transformed into “Let’s improve David” project. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
// I said that because he’s like a White President and because he’s embarrassing for Black people all around the world.
How should he be different? How is he embarrassing?
Viewing Obama as representing Black (!) people all around the world (!!) is a racist act. Should all white people all around the world be embarrassed because of Bush / Putin / somebody you dislike ?
LikeLike
It’s beyond me how you never lose your patience when engaging with David Gendron.
LikeLike
Few things are more fascinating than analyzing such discussions and seeing which anonymous interlocutor bugs each of us the most.
This was actually a huge part of my psychoanalysis where I discovered that the commenters in online discussions who drive me nuts are the people I perceive as an invasive maternal entity.
I guess David Gendron is REALLY nothing like my mother. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
// where I discovered that the commenters in online discussions who drive me nuts are the people I perceive as an invasive maternal entity
In general it is a thing one can know without psychoanalysis too, no? Like, if a person has some insecurity and people, who step on it, bug one?
I wish I understood why I sometimes bug Stringer Bell so much, without even meaning too.
LikeLike
“In general it is a thing one can know without psychoanalysis too, no? Like, if a person has some insecurity and people, who step on it, bug one?”
– There are more complicated cases, though. Sometimes you just can’t stomach somebody (in RL, too) and have no idea why. They might be a super nice person who never said a mean word to you but you still detest them. Hasn’t this happened to you? Interactions with such people are actually extremely useful.
“I wish I understood why I sometimes bug Stringer Bell so much, without even meaning too.”
– Now, if I responded to this, THAT would be gossip. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Welcome to the David Gendron’s gossiping post! 😉
LikeLike
// They might be a super nice person who never said a mean word to you but you still detest them. Hasn’t this happened to you? Interactions with such people are actually extremely useful.
Does the detesting cease after psychoanalysis ?
I don’t remember detesting people, I do remember not liking a person despite all seeming fine. Is it useful, if one understands the source of the feelings, gaining self-knowledge? I hope one isn’t supposed to force oneself to interact with people he dislikes to get this utility.
LikeLike
Yes, it gets MUCH better after you realize where the feelings come from. But I can’t say they go away completely.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment