Categories
a woman is always to blame anti-Semitism antifeminism conspiracy theory dan perrins drama kings dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about entitled babies evil SJWs men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA none dare call it conspiracy oppressed men post contains jokes post contains sarcasm straw feminists

New Men’s Rights conspiracy theory replaces the Illuminati with Teen Vogue

The hand that holds the golf club controls the world?
The hand that holds the golf club controls the world?

Most conspiracy theorists are surprisingly uncreative in their choice of villains, blaming all the ills in the world on one or more alleged evildoers in a fairly short list: the Jews, the government, the Illuminati, space aliens, and a handful of other familiar suspects.

One Men’s Rights activist wants to add a few more names to the list: the women’s magazines Glamour, Allure, Self, Vogue, and, most terrifyingly, Teen Vogue.

So how did the MRA in question — Dan Perrins of Ontario, Canada — arrive at this particular conclusion? Earlier this year, you see, GQ magazine ran a rather scathing piece by investigative journalist Jeff Sharlet about the Men’s Rights movement, centering around the weekend Sharlet spent amongst the convention-goers at A Voice for Men’s first (and probably only) International Conference for Men’s Issues last year.

Perrins made a brief appearance in the article. He’s the guy Sharlet quoted as saying, about an ex, that “I should have killed the bitch five years ago … I’d be out by now.”

But that’s ancient history now, because there’s a new GQ outrage that has the MRAs up in arms: namely, a cartoon depicting a Men’s Rights Activist as a loudmouthed middle-aged guy that no one wants to listen to. 

gqmracartoon
Huh. Which MRA does this cartoon remind me of? Oh yeah: All of them.

Now, it’s true that not every single MRA is a loudmouthed middle-aged guy that no one wants to listen to. Obviously, some of them aren’t middle-aged.

But Perrins thinks something more sinister is afoot. In his mind, this cartoon doesn’t reflect the normal revulsion most human beings feel when confronted with a Men’s Rights activist. No, in his mind the GQers are doing the bidding of their evil puppetmasters.

While Perrins’ screenshot is a little blurry, he’s highlighting a list of the women’s “fashion and lifestyle” magazines owned by Conde Nast: Vogue, W, Glamour, Allure, Self, and the dreaded … Teen Vogue.

Apparently, in order to appease the vicious feminazis that read and run these magazines, the editors of Conde-Nast-owned GQ need to do all they can to denigrate the true male heroes of the Men’s Rights movement.

Presumably, all other Conde Nast magazines need to follow the feminazi editorial dictates of GLAMOUR and SELF and TEEN VOGUE as well. In other words, don’t expect to find any positive accounts of, say, Dean Esmay’s groundbreaking Twitter campaign against cavernous feminist vaginas, or whatever other important human rights activism that the MRAs are up to today, in the pages of Architectural Digest or Bon Appétit.

But wait. What is this I see in the list of Conde Nast publications?

golf

Is it possible that the feminazis at Teen Vogue aren’t really the ones in charge, but are merely a front for the true puppetmasters?

Could it be that all of Conde Nast is in the pockets of BIG GOLF?

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

94 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stranded in Babylon
Stranded in Babylon
5 years ago

I was also accused of being a soc of an even older troll, but I’m not, and even David called me by my real first account name on the last thread. I expect to be banned, and I know that trolling is not healthy, so please pray to the Lord that I will be able to overcome it.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Unless someone beats me to it, I’m going to email David when I get home. One last chance Stranded, if you don’t want to be banned, be more interesting.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

I got it.

CalmPalm
CalmPalm
5 years ago

It is almost like they are unaware that media, like many other industries, is made up of a few companies that own properties ranging from newspapers to television stations. I would post that infographic about the 6 companies controlling 90% of the media but looking it up got a lot of anti-semetic and paranoid search results so it might be completely inaccurate. Regardless, it is true that companies often have their hands in multiple jars at once.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Stranded in Babylon | July 13, 2015 at 6:58 pm
This post was about conspiracies so it’s totally on topic to share my concerns about freemasonry.

Except their ties to this are strenuous at best. We weren’t mentioning the Freemasons seriously, only in jest.

It’s not an invitation for you to go off on a tangent.

There are also many women who believe in conspiracy theory so it’s anti-feminist to shame them; by contrast I am defending them.

Sorry, ye olde “shaming women is anti-feminist!” shtick isn’t going to work here. Feminism isn’t putting women up on untouchable pedestals, but rather saying that women can be wrong too, and holding them up to the same standards we hold ourselves too. Women aren’t always right, nor are they always deferred to by feminists. We are equal-opportunity Mockers of Silliness.

If we think you’re spouting off illogical silly nonsense, you will be called out for it, regardless of gender.

However, if you want to defend them, go right ahead.

The perspicaciously false catechism displayed on this blog is philosophically inconsiderate and in essence inconsistent with the moral truths and natural scriptural exegesis of the patristic traditions

“I’m going to use bigger words! Maybe then they won’t mock me!”

Nice try, but no.

And I fail to see how we’re being “philosophically inconsiderate” to Christians. If by which you mean “Not agreeing with me and bowing to me and my superior religion”, then yes.

However, I’ll leave you to the Christian among us to deal with this nonsense. I have no desire to deal with it.

Stranded in Babylon | July 13, 2015 at 7:00 pm
Also this thread didn’t have enough comments yet; I am actually helping you all by increasing the comment count. Idea generation is a noble goal.

What kind of ass-backwards thinking is this?

One, Quality Over Quantity, dude. If you don’t have any good, interesting ideas, then you’ve got jack fucking shit.

Two, this isn’t an idea generation session. It’s a discussion on the topic of David’s article. Either get on topic (and no, not discussing conspiracy as a whole, just this specific one), or GTFO.

Stranded in Babylon | July 13, 2015 at 8:30 pm
I expect to be banned, and I know that trolling is not healthy, so please pray to the Lord that I will be able to overcome it.

Whelp, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

And your problem is that you’re very boring and unoriginal.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago
Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Goddamn you typo mammoth.

I think my jitters are getting worse.

megpie71
5 years ago

mildlymagnificent: My solution to the “do I have to read the comments?” thing at the ABC website is this – I put 5c in a jar every time I run across a comment by someone who appears to do most of their thinking with their head up their arse (or who appears to have outsourced their thinking to the Murdoch media, which is a pretty close analogue). At the end of the year, the jar gets opened, and I put the money toward either buying booze (for cooking), buying fun stuff for me, or making charitable donations to charities I support but which the annoying commenters would find repugnant. My partner has come to refer to the sound of the money hitting the jar as me reading “Things that Make Meg Mad dot com”.

alaisvex
alaisvex
5 years ago

Ah, yes, magazines that dedicate their time to telling women every way in which they’re failing with regards to men and their looks are all part of the feminazi conspiracy. It makes perfect sense if you don’t think so hard about it.

alaisvex
alaisvex
5 years ago

@opium4themasses,

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said it was a very exceptional case. He said he had to consider the fact that there would be no rational case but for the confessions of the accused.

“In truth this case comes here today out of his own mouth,” he said before suspending the sentence.

The judge said in over three decades on the bench he had never come across a case like this.

He said in his view the most significant features of the case were the deceit, the repetition of the offences and the effect on the victim. He said the final significant feature in his view was the fact that “these would not have been prosecuted without the admission of the accused”.

Oh for the love of God. The judge is giving him credit for admitting what he did, not initially to the authorities but to his ex-girlfriend over email, and decides that the fact that he unintentionally provided the prosecution with enough evidence to prove their case means that he shouldn’t go to jail? What the ever-loving fuck? Now they can’t punish the perpetrator if its his fault that the prosecution had a case? In what world does that reasoning make sense?

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Glamour sometimes has marginally feminist content. Or at least they used to. I haven’t read in awhile. But that hardly means Conde Naste is a feminist company. It means they recognized that young single women tend to be one of the more progressive demographics and that’s Glamour’s target audience. So they created a product to appeal to them.

I’m also grateful to YM for having better sex ed than my school did in their annual sexual health issue. I don’t think they were Conde Naste though.

Problematic as women’s magazines are, they aren’t completely worthless. The manosphere wouldn’t have an issue with them if they were. It’s pretty dumb to think they’re more driven by ideology than profit though.

brooked
brooked
5 years ago

@Stranded in Babylon

Idea generation is a noble goal.

A goal you could theoretically reach in the future if you stopped doing all of the things you currently do here.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Apparently, in order to appease the vicious feminazis that read and run these magazines, the editors of Conde-Nast-owned GQ need to do all they can to denigrate the true male heroes of the Men’s Rights movement.

…because only an effeminate mangina could care about such trivial, gendered-slur-pleasing things as fashion, good grooming…or articles worth reading.
comment image

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

I hope everyone who is preparing to watch Steven Universe or Gravity Falls has padded their feels for protection.

Shaenon
5 years ago

Yeah, Conde Nast (more precisely its parent company, the even more massive Advance Publications) owns well-known feminist stronghold Reddit. It also owns about half the magazines still on newsstands, including The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Wired. How awesome would it be if all these things were run by the feminist conspiracy? I want to see Feminist Wired.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@Shaenon

Fired?

katz
katz
5 years ago

I want to see Feminist Wired.

I’ll send you a photo next time I have coffee.

ukataalex
5 years ago

Like seriously

mrex
mrex
5 years ago

Of course women’s mags are feminist! They teach us how to do makeup and outline “the 50 best sex moves to drive him wild in bed”. Raping men by deceiving them with make-up, and steering women away from the natural female instinct to lay perfectly still and think of the queen during sex, are major tools of male oppression in our matriarchy.

Luckily, these magizines have never been able to make sex with real women better than porn. Imagine the chaos if sex with women *was* enjoyable to men, oh the horror! Dogs and cats together! Tarantulas and wasps being friends! Red plaid pants paired with striped yellow shirts! Oh, the matriarchy would be unstoppable!

Remember kids, even a single shred of female self-esteem is one shred too many. All those size zero models, and gender enforcing norms, are tricks!

GrumpyOldSocialJusticeMangina

As far as I could ever figure out, the “women’s magazines” are basically the marketing division of the cosmetics industry — which, of course, profits from making women feel as negative as possible about their bodies. Occasionally a good article manages to sneak past the editors.

Falconer
5 years ago

I hope everyone who is preparing to watch Steven Universe or Gravity Falls has padded their feels for protection.

comment image

Sadly, I have to wait a little while before I can see the new eps. That means no Tumblr for me!

On a happier note, Beloved said she wanted to give Steven Universe a try, so yay! At least we will have each other’s shoulder to cry on.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

As far as I could ever figure out, the “women’s magazines” are basically the marketing division of the cosmetics industry — which, of course, profits from making women feel as negative as possible about their bodies. Occasionally a good article manages to sneak past the editors.

It’s a little more complicated than that. Women’s magazines were a big part of making female sexuality mainstream and something we could talk about.

Before the internet, women’s magazines were the only place easily accesseable by the masses where there were essays written by women about our experiences. The only places where women’s issues were talked about.

As I said earlier, I learned more about STIs and birth control methods from YM than I did from my parents or at school. And I lived in a quite progressive community and family there were other girls who needed that information even more than I did.

These magazines were the first place I learned about a variety of feminist issues.

Yes, women’s magazines are problematic as hell. Because, yeah, they depend on advertising revenue from the cosmetics, fashion, and diet industries. So, they’ll be an article on one page about the dangers of starvation diets and eating disorders and then pages of ads and photo spreads featuring skinny models.

But I’m a little uncomfortable with all the backlash against them. For the reasons I’ve already outlined. I think it’s tinged with unintentional classism. Women’s magazines are imperfect sources for learning about feminism, but they’re something that women everywhere in the country, regardless of education or socioeconomic can access. Not everyone can go to college and take women’s studies courses and learn feminist theory. Not everyone has the wherewithal to seek out good books on feminism on their own. With the internet, women’s magazines are not so important anymore because people can learn feminism 101 online without the contradictory fluff pieces about cosmetic surgery, makeup, and fad diet books you find in the magazines. But before everybody had internet access, women’s magazines were all a lot of women had.

I also don’t like the implication that women who read them are brainwashed or something.

This isn’t entirely directed at you, GOM. I see a derisive attitude towards magazines in feminist places and it rubs me the wrong way. I think it really comes from a place of privilege and is a little condescending and I just wanted to explain why.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

I see a derisive attitude towards magazines in feminist places and it rubs me the wrong way. I think it really comes from a place of privilege and is a little condescending and I just wanted to explain why.

Eh, sorry, WWTH, but I’m going to have to disagree here. Teenage me always saw the magazines as coming from a place of privilege and being condescending – the problematic stuff you mentioned just felt as if it was talking down to, shaming and laughing at me for not being thin and pretty enough. No amount of genuinely good articles could make up for how awful I felt about myself every time I read one.

But hey, herding cats and all that. Nothing wrong with different perspectives. ^^;

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Falconer, come lie on the floor with me. I need someone to mop up the tears after that last episode of Steven Universe coupled with that episode of Gravity Falls.

Falconer
5 years ago

Falconer, come lie on the floor with me. I need someone to mop up the tears after that last episode of Steven Universe coupled with that episode of Gravity Falls.

Okay, so long as there are no spoilers.

Falconer
5 years ago

What are feels?
Sugar, don’t hurt them
Don’t hurt them, no more

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

SFHC,
I certainly don’t have a problem with anyone personally believing that they’re too problematic to deal with and never being interested in them. I just think both the history and the content of these magazines are too complex to just dismiss them as evil and the their readers as stupid and shallow.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

You feels will be broken into tiny baby pieces and there will be no glue to fix them because the show is PART ONE OF FIVE so enjoy having those feels grinded down and down and down for the next week.

I was a big girl and didn”t cry…much. T3T At least not as much as the Connie swordfight episode or the flashback episode about Greg, Rose and fusion.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

And DEFINITELY not as much as the Lars episode or the video tape episode. Def.

GrumpyOldSocialJusticeMangina

I am certainly glad to hear that some women got something positive out of the magazines — that there was, in fact, maybe not a pony, but at least a kitty under that pile of shit. And I probably was a bit harsh on the content editors, who were probably sneaking in as much good stuff as their bosses would let them. It’s just that their co0mplicity in the cosmetics industry’s attempt to make every woman totally insecure about her body image seems to me to embody the worst aspects of capitalistic greed. I hate to seem anyone ANYONE manipulated and exploited for the purpose of making some people rich.
WWTH, I admire you for your ability to sift through and find the good and ignore the bad. I wish everyone had a good shit detector.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

I know in Seventeen there was good stuff. I remember reading several articles when I was younger about teenagers overcoming odds and doing work, although I don’t remember the specifics. They also had a couple of articles about condom and birth control, so it wasn’t too bad sometimes.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Jackie, did you know about the fan theories floating around that Lars is a transman? I thought they were pretty interesting.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@Paradoxical

No. I didn’t. No exactly sure I can see it, though. Can I get a link?

Falconer
5 years ago

Trans man or not, Lars is kind of an asshole.

I haven’t seen much of the theories, except someone claiming that carving one’s name into something is a trans thing.

But I mean, if someone wants to see Lars as trans, that’s fine, they don’t need to make a case for me.

pecunium
5 years ago

Don’t forget that Condé Nast owns Reddit, which is why MRAs dare not post ANYTHING there.

Oh, wait….

freemage
5 years ago

the discussion of women’s magazines, for me, parallels the way ‘chick lit’ and romance novels are critiqued. Yes, there’s often a lot of very problematic content, but again, it’s often what’s available for many women, and most in my acquaintance are quite capable of filtering out the good stuff for themselves–because it’s very often in there, alongside all the crap.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@Falconer

Carving one names into things is a trans thing? I don’t…think so? I mean, the chances of all those stupid tourists carving their names into historical monuments being trans is staggering PLUS puts transpeople in a bad light.

I don’t mind if someone has headcannon that he’s trans but there are theories which means there’s proof of it, so, I mean, that’s different. I would like to see proof that he might be transgender but I really doubt, if any character is transgender, it would be Lars. Because he’s an asshole who’s really drenched in a pool of toxic masculinity and puberty. You know, regular teenager stuff.

You don’t make an asshole a transgender individual in a children cartoon, especially a cartoon like Steven Universe, especially if they’re the only one, especially since Steven Universe doesn’t actually do straight-up representation of LGBT+ people but more allegory shit to get around censors and tightass asshole parents.

Headcannon, I can see that. Actual proof that he’s transgender? I really can’t see that without someone pointing it out for me.

brooked
brooked
5 years ago

@pecunium

Hey, good to see you back, I hope you and yours are well.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

pecunium !

Great to see you. Hope life is good for you.

Falconer
5 years ago

Welp, I’m caught up through “Road Trip.”

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/964/402/ba4.png

Carving one names into things is a trans thing? I don’t…think so? I mean, the chances of all those stupid tourists carving their names into historical monuments being trans is staggering PLUS puts transpeople in a bad light.

The argument was it was an assertion of identity, tagging things with the name he’s chosen for himself. But I saw the argument on Tumblr, so … yeah.

Falconer
5 years ago

Hey pecunium! I hope it’s all going well.

Orion
5 years ago

WWTH,

Your comment on the value in women’s magazines struck me as insightful, and I wanted to make a supporting comment. Then I saw SFHC’s response, which I think also has merit; I’d say you’re both right, and I think the seeming discrepency is solvable.

Anyway, since I dug in so hard against you two last time around, and then found myself wanting to address you again, I figured I’d ask you two your guidance on what I ought to do. Would you prefer that I not comment here, or that I apologize for my excessive aggression last week and let it go, or that I hop back on that thread and try for a quick explanation of my perspective and what I was really upset about?

Anyway, if interested, take on this subject follows:

I’m kind of with Weirwood on this one. I’m a cis male, but I learned a few things from women’s mags, so I can easily believe they were important vectors for some girls. The only thing I’d add would be to note that today, in America, we’re still living “before everybody had internet access.” A quick google suggests that 73% of American families have broadband service, but among those 73 are families with just 1 shared computer, or 2+ computers that are shared by multiple users and/or set up in public spaces. If we’re concerned about teenage girls’ access to information on sex and sexual health, I think the question is “how many teenage girls have routine, unsupervised, unfiltered internet access?”, which is probably well below 70%.

SFHC,

I think I sense the same condescension you do, but I don’t see it as either/or. I think it can be true that both the magazines’ publishers and the magazines’ loudest critics have some contempt for, and some privilege over, the target audience. The paradox of poverty (and probably all marginalization?) is that one is forced to depend on those who victimize or exploit them. Even with something like payday loans, we try to understand both why they are very bad for borrowers and why people take them. Women’s magazines are nowhere near as bad as payday loans, but I look at it the same way: to get the whole story, one needs to see both what’s legitimately valuable in them and what’s condescending and harmful.

Sandra Goodick
5 years ago

I agree with WWTH on the potential for women’s magazines to inform women in the pre-internet era.

I read Glamour fairly regularly between ages 16 – 24 (before the advent of the internet) and every month they had the article on a “women’s issue” that always delivered with a feminist perspective. Glamour was where I learned about female genital mutilation, equal pay for equal work and bodily autonomy issues such as the right to choose. Perhaps I came across Glamour in a particularly feminist era but it was decidedly pro-choice and feminist.

This is not an ad for Glamour. I haven’t read it in 20 yrs and my daughter has access to information everywhere.