Where have I been? How did this tempest evade the radar? Sassy girls have come of age and are scrambling for media shares, leading to the creation of B**ch magazine in 1996. Almost ten years in production and only now do I hear of this amazing publication?
Bi*ch's piercing, brazen approach to women's issues puts "a lucid, balanced face on feminism for all kinds of folks, including people who aren't really aware that feminism refers to more than women who don't want to shave their legs," according to its Web site. At the same time, the publication is not about palliating its philosophy with the "We're feminists, but we're not really feminists" cop-out. Bi*ch isn't coy about openly impugning those who believe staying home to raise the baby is the only vital "issue" women nowadays face. Rather, the erudite troublemakers of Bitch deftly map the diversity of third-wave feminism -- creating a forum in which discussions about gender bias in sociobiology, tips on writing a protest letter, articles on porn luminaries like Candida Royale, and critiques of sexual empowerment as envisaged in Buffy the Vampire Slayer all happily coexist.
Sure; seems there's no positive, cohesive image they can agree on but just a monthly catfight where ranting sounds like the order of the day. They do have their laser focused on one particular former colleague, though, about whom they can agree on her heresy:
The magazine also has a legendary beef with Jane Pratt, editor of Jane Magazine and a former editor at Sassy. "We would love to flatter ourselves by thinking that it's our constant harping on her narcissism and the abundance of empty, self-referential content in Jane magazine that led to her decision to step down in September, but I'm sure that's totally not the case," quips Bi*ch Editorial and Creative Director Andi Zeisler.
No, m'dears. Nothing about your own venture sounds self-referential -- unless you define that to mean sentimental. B**ch sound every bit as narcissistic and self-referential but cloaked in dark, piercing anger. Scowling about "me" is everybit as self-absorbed as cooing about "me," and both journals seem to be a bust. Why else would no one have heard of B**ch until now, and only in an off-beat weekly from a gender-confused city?
[the ***'s, of course, are my editing. No such luck for the real thing -- if it sits on your coffee table, it shrieks its name to all comers.]
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.