gone Bust

25 Responses to “gone Bust”

1. Anonymous on April 27th, 2006 4:24 am

   You know what’s feminist? Actually getting shit done. And not pretending that fawning over cute things is somehow new and empowering.

   Fuckin’ A, Bub–er–you go, girlfriend! Can I have an Amen?

2. Anonymous on April 27th, 2006 12:49 pm

   Right on Jennifer,
   “a hand-crocheted change purse shaped like Rosie the Riveter”-that’s awesome. Have you sent this letter to Bust magazine?

3. Rachel on April 27th, 2006 5:26 pm

   This doesn’t sound like a screed against knitting to me so much as a screed against leisure activity. If it’s so important that women spend every waking moment gaining power and making money, shouldn’t all hobbies other than investment clubs and debating societies be included in your rant?

   If you don’t care for crafts, that’s fine, and I don’t blame you for being disappointed that Bust is devoting more pages to that topic. But suggesting that they’re keeping women from making money and achieving power seems a bit of a stretch. There are plenty of forces at work in the world that limit women’s advancement — I think you’re wasting your effort arguing that crafts are one of them.

   P.S. I am an avid knitter. Last month I wore an Ann Taylor suit to a job interview. I’m pretty sure one was not connected to the other.

4. REAL zombie, not the fake one that pretended to be me on April 27th, 2006 6:41 pm

   I’m going to have to go with Rachel on this one. A friend of mine runs a knitting club, and it’s very popular with the women AND men of Toronto.
   I don’t think being a feminist also means to be a hard headed capitalist. There’s enough masculinity in the world as it is, I don’t see what’s wrong with ‘fawning over cute things’. We need more cute things to suppress the overly macho things.

5. Lady_Aye on April 27th, 2006 7:28 pm

   How dare women decide how to best spend their own leisure time! All creativity and energy should be poured in climbing to the top of the corporate ladder, so they can mimic all that is loathsome and blind in men’s ambition.

6. Anonymous on April 27th, 2006 7:28 pm

   Rachel said, “I don’t blame you for being disappointed that Bust is devoting more pages to that topic.”
   If Jennifer’s post was directed towards Better Homes and Gardens instead of Bust then Rachel’s comment would be warranted.
   My sense is that it was out of concern for a magazine, devoted to feminism, that seems to be getting soft. And did you miss the irony in,”a hand-crocheted change purse shaped like Rosie the Riveter”?

7. Molly Crabapple on April 27th, 2006 7:53 pm

   The point isn’t that knitting is anti-feminist. The point is that it isn’t empowering, as it’s so often made out to be in Bust-y things.

   I like looking at cuteoverload.com. But it isn’t reveloutionary or empowering or feminist for a chick to go gaga over kittens. It’s just going gaga over kittens.

   I just wish Bust had a wee bit more on ladies taking over the world, and a wee bit less cutesy crafts.

   Hard headed capitalism rocks my socks.

8. Anonymous on April 27th, 2006 8:20 pm

   Know who really IS equally comfortable in jeans or an LBD? Martha Stewart. Martha Stewart built an empire being a domestic goddess and jane of all trades when it comes to “crafts”. She seems to me to be pretty comfortable.

   Know who seems to be pretty uncomfortable on the other hand? A woman who is interested in criticizing how her sisters spend their own leisure time can’t be too comfortable in her own skin, much less jeans or a cocktail dress.

   I agree with Rachel.

9. JenIsFamous on April 28th, 2006 1:57 am

   Um, if a magazine dedicated to the empowerment of men decided to devote more pages to creating a perfectly manicured lawn, wouldn’t you be suspicious? Like maybe someone was trying to distract someone else, or at least that the editorial staff was losing its focus?

   I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the choice to groom lawns or knit as a hobby, but I AM saying that cross-stitching “Homo Sweet Homo” onto a sampler is not the best use of pages in a feminist vehicle.

   I’m going to start a magazine dedicated to Empowering Republicans and Promoting All Things Republican. Then, once a bunch of Republicans are subscribed, I’m going to progressively devote more and more pages to 1) whittling, and 2) deep-woods backpacking.

   Doesn’t that seem … suspicious?

   See?

   Have a nice doily,

   Jen

10. Anonymous on April 28th, 2006 2:10 am

    “Know who seems to be pretty uncomfortable on the other hand? A woman who is interested in criticizing how her sisters spend their own leisure time “

    Um

    I think Jenisfamous is criticizing how magazine publishers publish material in magazines that is irrelevent to the point of the magazine.

    Maybe that makes her “uncomfortable” publishing magazines? Hardly “uncomfortable” in her own skin. I’ve seen her skin! It’s quite nice.

    http://www.jenisfamous.com/evilkid.shtml

    ZHM

11. MATT PENN on April 28th, 2006 3:26 am

    Hmmmmmn. I guess I’ll get my dog into this fight. . .

    While I DO agree with Rachel (and Anonymous who responded by saying she agreed with her), that it is hardly empowering for women to be criticizing how other women spend their leisure time, what lifestyles they adopt, etc. . .I think Jen’s and Molly’s point is not only well-taken, but also being missed for what it is.

    That point may be illustrated by making an exactly opposite observation about Martha Stewart. (Or, as a sort of male counterpart, Tiger Woods.) Sure, Martha Stewart is the Doyenne of Domesticity, or whatever you want to call her. But to the extent that she (or Betty Crocker, Sara Lee, or Mrs. Field) is today an empowered rich lady, it is her savvy in the boardroom as much as in the kitchen that accounts for that fact. Similarly, for Tiger Woods, golf is a means to a very lucrative commercial end. But pretending that Golf Digest is a primer on male empowerment, rather than just a hobby and interest publication for the weekend duffer, is being intellectually dishonest.

    There’s nothing “wrong” with magazines devoted entirely to such “trivialities” as fashion, better homes and gardens, golf, cigar smoking, what have you. But as I understand it–and I admit that I do not subscribe to Bust (or, for that matter, Maxim or Playboy)–the magazine in question is, at least ostensibly, devoted to empowerment of women. Hobbies that do not also have some commercial component should not be construed as “empowering”. They’re hobbies, and AS SUCH are fine for what they are.

    The bottom line, as I see it, is not so profound, but apparently bears elucidation: There’s a difference between a diversion and a vocation. And knitting a toaster cozy while you ride the L train is not the same thing as turning the sweaters you’ve purled for your grandchildren into a recognizable brand that nets you gazillions.

12. Yeah me Zombie, the real one this time, not the fake one pretending to be the real one on April 28th, 2006 4:15 am

    I really can’t see how reading a magazine like ‘Bust’ is going to empower a woman anyway; editors and authors not included. What is it to ‘empower women’ anyhow? -is it to ‘degrade men’?
    Any woman who is open-minded and able to think for themselves will not need a magazine to tell them how to live life. Publications like these are in abundance nowadays; they’re targeted at the easily impressionable to wean them off the teenybopper magazines. They’re really just an insult to intelligence.
    Read books people!

13. June Roman on April 28th, 2006 2:15 pm

    The point Zombie is not so much that a magazine (or reading it) will empower anyone. The point is that while a testimonial about the founder of Starbucks who was the son of an immigrant and who built an empire IS a testimony to empowerment, as Matt Penn points out “a travelogue of the peripatations (Matt word!) of Staci and Dawn to go buy frappucinos and bullshit about Holly’s boyfriend and their way cool new ringtones, um, is not.” (Well put Matt!)

    Not all magazines are as you put it an insult to intelligence. Golf Digest may not be the New England Journal of Medicine but guess what? There’s probably a pretty wide overlap in their readerships. Reading the NEJM might not give you any insight into curing the common cold (much less cancer or AIDS) but GD might include a few pointers on curing your slice, y’know? So for what it is GD or BH&G is informative and not an insult to intelligence at all. It simply isn’t very important in the grand scheme of things.

    BTW, congratulations on your wedding Jen! Matt told me it was a beautiful ceremony and reception. You and Lord make a really cute couple. I like the pic of him eating the flowers. And what a kiss!

    XOX,
    J-Ro

14. Lady_Aye on April 28th, 2006 7:23 pm

    Well, I think one of the main issues here is what constitutes “feminism” in the first place. Is it a pursuit of the rights of women to self-determination or should we just become more like men? If, as you put it, “getting shit done” is the main objective then feminism boils down to becoming the sort of alpha male we’ve grown to despise in the work place. Hand me an apron and count me out.

    If, on the other hand, feminism is ultimately a movement toward empowering women to determine their own destinies, their own likes and dislikes, and so on, then we should be encourage women to develop the sort of skills that crafting can inspire (e.g., creativity and the ability to relax and think), then I don’t think it’s disempowering at all. In fact, if you look at the history of American business, woman from Madame CJ Walker to Mrs. Fields to AV Phibes have started sucessful businesses based on concepts you’d dismiss as silly or too domestic.

15. Matt Penn on April 29th, 2006 12:21 am

    Lady_Aye, no offense, but I must come to Jen and Molly’s defense here and again insist that their point, as I took it, is being missed. (Sorry for using the passive voice, Jen. I’m a guy, and should have been using the passive-aggressive one. I know. My bad.)

    (Kidding.)

    Seriously, while you make a good point, Lady_Aye, about how persons like Mrs. Fields (to whom I allude in my post above) or AV Phibes have built successful businesses as a result of their respective mastery of so-called crafts, I continue to maintain what I said in my reply to someone who brought up Martha Stewart. What has EMPOWERED Martha Stewart is not that she might be a good cook. Cooking, after all, is not such an uncommon skill; even among those who do it well. No, if one is to hold any kind of power at all, one will have to do what is not merely uncommon, but what is in fact a little beyond expectations. So the point is not that a woman is handy in the kitchen or garden. The point is that those who become empowered–like Martha Stewart, Tiger Woods, Mrs. Field, or AV Phibes–take their “hobbies” and turn them into VOCATIONS at which they excel.

    Is the only measure of feminine empowerment the acquisition of the filthy luchre some men are derided for seeking so avariciously? Of course not. No self-respecting feminist would argue that it is, and neither Jen nor Molly make such a case. That said, I am hard-pressed to think of a single person whose “dilletante-ish”–I need an adjective, Jen!–interest in this or that has made him or her excel at it. Indeed, practice does bring one closer to perfection, while casual dabbling is just that. What differentiates Tiger Woods or Pete Sampras from the guy at the country club, after all, is NOT ONLY so-called “God-given talent”, or a muscular physique, brains, savvy, whatever else is brought to bear in sports. It’s also DEDICATION to craft. In addition to being the world’s best golfer, Tiger Woods also happens to be the world’s hardest working golfer; a man who wakes up at dawn to hone his skills and who (forgetting that he has more money than Croesus because of his dedication to craft) spends his fortune not resting on his laurels while playing with expensive toys–he has plenty of toys–but also on hiring the best instructors to make him even better. Golfer Phil Mickelson, who just won his second Masters tournament, employs not one, but two coaches. Why? Well, Mickelson may be a millionaire and damn handy with a pitching wedge. But there’s still this fellow named Tiger Woods whom he’d like to beat. I admire that.

    As I took it, Jen and Molly’s point–and I am taking the liberty of paraphrasing my own interpretation of it–was that whereas growing rhodendendrons is a perfectly “valid” pasttime from which one might derive pleasure, a magazine such as Bust, dedicated (at least ostensibly) to the empowerment of women, would do well to spend more time publishing articles that speak to how women are becoming successful small businesswomen, or just feeding their families more economically, or with more nutritious (or “imaginative”, whatever) foods, while honing particular craftspersonship. Yes, success and empowerment may be measured differently. But the empowered are not half-assed about what empowers them. Period.

    Thus, IF one’s only goal is to complete a crafts project for the same reason one might climb a mountain (i.e., because it’s there), fine. So be it. Making a skirt out of a pillowcase, and making it well, is arguably empowering, if the craftsperson’s only goal was to fabricate her own article of clothing just to say she did it herself. But Jen and Molly are each empowered women. One might not consider Jen the only funny comedienne or Molly the only talented painter, but certainly no one could say fairly that they do not take what they do seriously, or that humor and illustration, respectively, are for them merely “hobbies”. And so, I think each was merely exhorting a magazine they otherwise like to inspire women to greater ambitions than just making a doily or a toaster cozy. Is that a value judgment on their parts? It is. But it happens to be, I think, a value judgment grounded in the recognition that, unlike Golf Digest, Bust is not produced for those interested only casually in pursuing diversionary projects.

16. Anonymous on April 29th, 2006 2:27 am

    this thread has empowered me to sleep

17. Lady_Aye on May 1st, 2006 2:28 pm

    Let me rephrase this:

    Hard work, goal seeking and creating opportunity are all skills we should be imbuing in girls and women. Blind ambition, an inability to relax and think creatively, and rigidity of thought are not.

    Another thing we might want to drop is a misplaced sense of entitlement with magazines. I WANT Time to kick Robert Novak in the nuts. They are not going to, therefore it is up to me to proceed with forming my own opinions. You may want to take the same tack with Bust.

18. Matt Penn on May 1st, 2006 4:42 pm

    NOW you’re talking, Lady-Aye! Indeed, the point was never that there’s anything “wrong” with being interested in crafts. The point was that it’s high time that we stop pretending “the illusion of movement” is really a movement. As Molly pointed out, fawning over kittens is JUST fawning over kittens; nothing “wrong” with it if that’s what floats your boat, but don’t imbue all that ooohing and awwwwing with greater significance than it deserves.

    A good example, I think, of this “illusion of movement” may be seen in today’s Let’s All Take the Day Off strike that has been declared on behalf of the illegals living and working in this country. (Yeah, yeah. I know it’s not a “strike”. It’s a “protest”. It’s a “demonstration”. Bullshit. Liberal Ted Kennedy is absolutely right in pointing out that when you don’t report to work, it’s a job action.)

    More importantly, Kennedy, of all persons we might otherwise expect to be sympathetic to immigrants–as he is; as I am as well even if I am ever barbed in my criticism of the absurd–Kennedy is correct in noting that NOT working ain’t gonna do much to overcome negative racial stereotypes. If you (incorrectly and ignorantly) thought that members of certain ethnic groups were lazy to begin with, I don’t see how you’re going to be left with a warm fuzzy feeling when the one who works for you calls in “sick” this morning, y’know?

    Sorry to go off on an apparent tangent, but it really ISN’T a tangent. That’s because the point, whether we’re talking about feminism or immigration reform, is that empowerment is about doing MEANINGFUL things; what Jen referred to as “getting shit done”. That “shit” might, as I suggested, be nothing more than making the pillowcase halter top for the sake of doing it oneself. But merely keeping busy, if that’s all one is really doing, is not moving forward. And moving forward, however so defined and toward whatever ultimate destination, is the goal of any “movement”. That’s why it’s called a “movement”, after all. That’s why we grab our candles, pin our ribbons on (if we can keep it straight which color we’re wearing today, that is), sing Kum-Ba-Ya, and remind ourselves that we shall overcome; not that we shall remain inert like some, uh, BOWEL movement left behind by that dog on its march to Pretoria.

    Just as Miguel should seek today and every day to row the boat ashore, I would think it would be the goal of a “feminist” publication to encourage women to do more than just continue treading in an effort to keep their heads above what would otherwise be the glass ceiling of the water’s surface.

    Right?

19. Lady_Aye on May 1st, 2006 7:13 pm

    Matt, brevity is the soul of wit.

    Moreover, I stand by my assertion: Jen’s points, whether they regard crafting, feminism or the Bust editorial calendar, are ill-conceived, out-dated and anti-empowerment.

    And I can embroider that on a slip.

20. Julie Myers on May 1st, 2006 7:19 pm

    I know it’s off the original topic of Bust magazine but..

    A woman in my office told me that the reason the national “strike” is taking place today is because there was that Darfur thing with George Clooney going on over the weekend. Imagine that–we live in a country where one’s indignation has to be scheduled!

    Oh no, we can’t protest TODAY! The animal rights folks are marching today. Let’s see here. How about next Tuesday? Huh? Well, if the 9/11 families are protesting the building of the Freedom Tower then that’s obviously more important. We wouldn’t want to be insensitive to anyone, least of all the 9/11 families. What’s that? Okay, we’ll take noon at City Hall on Wednesday. We’ll be done by 3 so that the teachers or the cabbies or the homeless or whoever can have the plaza. We’ll have biodegradable bags for everyone to chuck their placards and ribbons when they’re done.

    Jeeze! It seems like being pissed off is like making a dinner reservation these days. How many in your party? 20,000? I’m afraid I can’t seat you before 10, unless you want to come at 5:30? Too early? Well, I’m sorry. Thanks for calling Fâché. Please come back soon! Goodbye!

21. Matt Penn on May 1st, 2006 8:07 pm

    Lady_Aye, we are going to just have to agree to disagree. Jen Dziura’s ideas are not at all anything you describe. In fact, they are what this boy would characterize as refreshingly progressive and, most importantly (to me as an avid reader of what she has to say) pragmatic.

    I stand by what I said about “the illusion of movement”. And as for brevity being the soul of wit. . .forgive me, I have been diagnosed with ADHD or am “brevity challenged” or otherwise can get a doctor’s note. . Jen’s the comedian.

22. June Roman on May 2nd, 2006 2:34 pm

    I’ll be brief (if not witty): I gotta go with my witty friend Matt and agree that nothing Jen wrote is “anti-empowerment”. Matt says (briefly for him): “Everyone’s throwing something–rocks at soldiers, barbs across the aisle, pots at Our Name is Mud. Some folks are throwing their freedom to be individuals away; just mimicking what’s fashionable instead of cutting their own swaths.”

    Speaking of swaths. . .

    Jen’s right that a professional woman SHOULD wear an Ann Taylor suit if doing so will help her get taken seriously or head IN THE PATH SHE’S CHOSEN. Thats just practical and realistic.

    Like Jen!

23. Matt Penn on May 2nd, 2006 4:05 pm

    Nice job embroidering your own Freudian slip there, Junie. . .

    “Jen’s right that a professional woman SHOULD wear an Ann Taylor suit if doing so will help her get taken seriously or head IN THE PATH SHE’S CHOSEN. Thats just practical and realistic.”

    Well, if that’s the case, let’s not be sexist here, toots. Why should you gals have all the fun? I’M going to run right out and get MYSELF an Ann Taylor suit! Yeah. I don’t MIND being Eddie Izzard–though doubtless not as brief nor as funny–if it’ll advance an important movement like my getting some of that HEAD stuff I’ve heard is all the rage.

    ; )

24. June Roman on May 2nd, 2006 5:11 pm

    OMG! That’s NOT what I meant!

    [blushing]

    Brief AND witty Matt!

    ; )

25. Elizabeth Crane on May 4th, 2006 2:30 pm

    So are we saying feminism and empowerment and crafting are mutually exclusive? Huh. For my 2 cents, since I’ve been busy crafting again in maybe the last six months, (something I’ve done since I was a kid), for sheer enjoyment, gifts and for the general public to consume, I’ve also completed my third book of short stories, taught classes at U of Chicago, read a bunch of books, generally had a life and slept eight hours a night, and I’m relatively sure I will never have cause to wear an Ann Taylor suit nor will I ever be caught dead wearing anything ironically. I try not to measure my life by where I am on some ladder someone else determined I should be on. And I have to also wonder why, if it’s my choice, doing anything like crafting or building sandcastles, if it makes me happy and makes other people happy, how that’s not empowering in and of itself.

Got something to say?