Feminism, Health, Media, Sex

Women Needed a Magazine that Doesn’t Lie to Them. So I Started One

 As founder and editor-in-chief of a new web site aimed at women, I often get asked: Why do we need yet another publication in this already crowded media niche? It’s simple: Until now, all of the major players have had one common characteristic. Can you guess what it is?

When Bryan Goldberg announced in a blog post that he had raised $6.5 million to start Bustle.com, a site for women, many competitors weren’t happy. “Isn’t it time for a women’s publication that puts world news and politics alongside beauty tips?” Goldberg wrote. A Jezebel writer, Hazel Cills, responded that such sites already exist. And she was right—perhaps more so than Cills knew: All the publications mentioned in her Jezebel article—The Hairpin, The Toast, Bust, Bitch, xoJane, Autostraddle, Refinery29, AfterEllen and Jezebel itself—push a liberal, feminist message. The same is true of older outlets such as Cosmopolitan, Elle, Glamour and Allure. Go ahead and find me a single successful, mainstream women’s lifestyle-and-culture publication that doesn’t regularly exhibit a bias against conservative points of view.

There’s been a shift in recent years in the kind of content these publications push. Do most women you know really want to grow hairy legs? No. Do they really want to forgo feminine hygiene, because “a real man loves his woman any time of the month”? No. Do they like cheering for male-bodied individuals who dominate women’s sports—like when Fallon Fox crushed a woman’s skull in MMA? Definitely not.

For decades, magazines have sold women countless lies about sex, emotional fulfillment and health issues—usually under the guise of “empowerment.” They prey on women’s insecurities by normalizing unhealthy extremes (first it was borderline anorexia, now it’s obesity). They encourage casual sex and lie to readers about its emotional ramifications. They tell women they’ll be unhappy with a husband and kids but fulfilled working for a male boss at a big corporation. They laud celebrities who aren’t good role models, turned Hillary Clinton into an object of worship, and attack or ignore women who don’t share their views.

Millions of women—especially here in the United States, where I live and work—have been left out. They’re tired of having to go to trashy publications just to find useful reads on health and beauty. For decades, women’s publications have tried to convince women they can be just like men, instead of celebrating femininity and what makes women wonderfully unique. It was this gap in the market that made me and my colleagues wonder: “What if there were a conservative Cosmo?”

From that question, Evie Magazine was born. She’s an online publication covering health, beauty, fashion, relationships, career and culture. Her mission is to empower, educate and entertain young women with content that celebrates femininity, encourages virtue, and offers a more honest perspective than they get elsewhere. She’s Classier than Cosmo, Sexier than Refinery29, and Smarter than Bustle. Millennial women are Evie’s audience, but so are the “Gen Z” women born from the mid-1990s onward. (Do men read Evie? Sure they do—even if they might not admit it.)

Is Evie “feminist”? That depends on your definition of feminism. The reality is, modern feminism in its doctrinaire form isn’t popular. Many women realize that, at its core, progressive third-wave feminism can express itself as a form of self-hatred: a rejection of our feminine beauty, unique gifts and the natural role we play in our communities. In effect, it seeks to turn first-rate women into second-rate men. Paradoxically, this movement also is suffused with negative and condescending attitudes toward masculinity, whereas Evie readers love their men, and are thankful for the protection and sacrifice that men often have been called upon to deliver throughout history.

* * *

Why has it taken this long for conservative women to create a publication such as Evie? Because conservatives simply aren’t good at pop culture—and to some extent even have become repelled by it. They’re tired of celebrities telling them what to think, of Hollywood gala hosts instructing everyone what ribbons to wear and what politicians to hate. But at the end of the day, we’re all human: We all love to be entertained and inspired. We crave that beautiful song, that hilarious show, that movie that takes us to another world. We can’t reject pop culture entirely because it gives us something we need.

Evie isn’t “fighting the culture war.” That’s not how we see our mission: Conservatives will never win if they imagine themselves as combatants atop defensive battlements, hurling abuse on the mass media. We need to involve ourselves in the creation of pop culture, and thereby help change how that category is defined. That project starts by creating good content, whether in the form of books, films, TV, music or magazines. If politics is downstream from culture, and culture is largely shaped by entertainment, why are most influential conservatives ignoring the latter? We delude ourselves if we think everything we say or do has to go straight to politics.

Facts are great. Truth is paramount. But if all you’re bringing to your audience is abstract ideas, you’re not going to be effective. People seem more emotionally wounded and depressed now than they’ve been in decades. They’re concerned at least as much with feeling good as doing good. They’ve been conditioned to expect instant gratification, thanks in large part to technology. Conservatives need to meet them halfway.

At the same time, there are substantive messages that women need to hear—especially when it comes to sex. Modern men are reaping the “benefits” of sexual liberation because women have bought into the lie that men and women respond the same way to intimacy. Men now can sleep with countless women without emotional attachment or consequences. The joke’s on us. “Liberation” was a genius idea for men, but it’s left women devastated and empty. Here’s an idea: instead of “Simple Tips To Cheat On Your SO And Actually Get Away With It” (an actual 2016 article in Elite Daily), why not “Here’s How to Stay Faithful When the Going Gets Rough”?

Some people won’t like Evie’s advice—such as the hordes of liberal Lancelots on white horses who heroically show up on our social-media feeds to defend women’s right to engage in casual sex with them. Go figure. But at Evie, we never tell anyone how to think. We don’t patronize, and we don’t judge. The advice comes from a place of love, backed by data and rooted in truth. We believe that if you seek truth, you’ll find beauty (the kind that really matters). Women often are told sweet-sounding adages like, “you’re perfect just the way you are!” But those sentiments often aren’t truthful, and discourage self-improvement.

The women of Evie are socially and ethnically diverse. We’re free thinkers, unbeholden to any political doctrine. We’re “conservative” to the extent we generally believe in hard work and refuse to play the victim. But we also believe in having compassion for the less fortunate. We believe in science, not bought-and-paid-for policy propaganda, and that we should be responsible stewards of our planet. We believe we should judge each other by our virtue, not shallow appearances or the color of our skin. We think that selfless love is the most important virtue, especially in our personal relationships; and, when it comes to society as a whole, justice comes in as a close second. We believe in the rule of law and in due process—which means that, no, not every woman should automatically be “believed.”

And yes, we believe women have the power to change the world—in part because the influential hearts and minds of tomorrow will be molded in the homes of today. If that makes us conservative, then I guess we are.

 

Brittany Martinez is founder and Editor-in-Chief of Evie Magazine. Follow Evie on Twitter at @Evie_Magazine.

Featured image: Promotional photo for Evie’s newest digital edition.  

127 Comments

  1. Aleph from Paris says

    While I understand and appreciate the philosophy of your publication, I find it patronizing like most girl magazines. I understand it gives valuable piece of advice and cheers up. I find it does so by mimicing and using peer pressure instead of developping independance and critical thinking. It basically goes: “So no excuse for this, and that, let’s stop this!” instead of “doing this leads to that”.

    However, I appreciate it very much.

    For taste reasons, and no marketing, quota, or whatsoever, I would appreciate more asian, african and native-american ladies to be shown. It’s just that I love asian, native-american and african ladies as much as europeans.

    Moreover, I would suggest a “personnal project” section for ladies willing to share their own projects and ambitions in an inspirationnal way. That is what I am most interested in.

      • Aleph from Paris says

        Sure, it’s creepy to advocate independent thought and what people do, want, or think.

        • Peter from Oz says

          ” I would appreciate more asian, african and native-american ladies to be shown. It’s just that I love asian, native-american and african ladies as much as europeans. ”
          Creepy

          • Aleph from Paris says

            Not creepy at all.

            You haven’t looked at the magazine, for sure. It shows a lot of pictures of ladies. What are they there for? Because it’s fun, beautiful, etc. whatever you want but it all comes down to a matter of taste.

            If you think it’s creepy to say that one’s own taste is more like this or that regarding a certain area, you have first to acknowledge that the area itself is creepy, and that displaying the pictures was creepy in the first place, which you did not, and which of course is not the case at all.

            My guess is that you are uncomfortable with your own feelings and project guilt where there is nothing to be ashamed of.

            What I find creepy is to insult people who merely say they appreciate to see women willingly photgraphed.

            Last, but not least, the reference to my being French is awkward. I’m French, and proud to say I love women and looking at how beautiful they are, if it also pleases them, and from all over the world. if that sounds creepy, you live in hell.

      • @ Jon from Winterfell

        No need to refer to your mother’s cunt like that! Did you side out of it or were you lifted out?

      • susan says

        Ewwwww…..
        It’s too bad there’s no feature on here to flag trolls.
        Go back under your bridge.

    • Asshole from Merica says

      Seems like you have it all figured out. Start your own fucking magazine.

    • coveredgirl says

      And maybe show an equal amount of modest fashion options. Not everyone wants to show every inch of skin below their glutei or above mid pectoralis. You’re doing this to be inclusive, so, be inclusive.

      • Turd Ferguson says

        Agreed. Honestly most people both men and women could stand for a lesson in modesty not have the physique they would like to believe they have.

    • BTW, what’ s wrong with lying? Trump does it all the way, and even got 51% of the American votes with it. If Evie would only have 0.1% as subscribers, that would be 300.000, quite profitable for a magazine, I think.

  2. Holly says

    I love this. I’m really excited to see Gen Z come into the scene. They will be the free thinkers who can also engage in pop culture and produce real art at the same time. I do believe the generational tide is turning towards truth and virtue again.

    And that last paragraph is 🔥

  3. M. Diamantis says

    Best of luck. I’m excited to see something like this finally created. It’s been long overdue.

  4. Annabel Murphy says

    I went ahead and checked out this new publication, and it was vapid, tedious and unremarkable. For example, they have articles from Roaming Millennial, the most pointless conservative commentator whose main claim to fame is not being an ugly guy on YouTube. She says nothing important and likes to pander to others, as you will find when you read her articles.

    But honestly I’m not surprised at the low quality of writing on Evie. Women tend to be less intellectual and less brilliant writers which is why it’s rare to read something mentally stimulating written by a female.

    • ThereAreDozensOfUs says

      And you, my dear, need to read something written by Bari Weiss, Christina Hoff Summers or Camila Paglia before you make such wild statements

      • Anna Murphy says

        For every one of those women, there are 20 or more male writers that are their equal, if not, better. For every one Christina Hoff Summers, you easily have 20 Christopher Hitchens.
        On top of that – Camille Paglia also happens to be biologically male.

        I have a sneaking suspicion you work with/or are friends with the folks of this publication. Otherwise, why else would you shut down a thoughtful feedback and valid criticism?

        • Sydney says

          @Anna Murphy

          “…Camille Paglia also happens to be biologically male.”

          This will come as news to Camille Paglia.

          Is this your idea of “thoughtful feedback and valid criticism”?

        • Sandy says

          Camille has stated she is biological female but prefers to be seen as androgynous in her appearance.

        • chrism says

          “For every one of those women, there are 20 or more male writers that are their equal, if not, better. For every one Christina Hoff Summers, you easily have 20 Christopher Hitchens.”

          If only. The world could do with 20 Hitches right now.

    • Why should they, Annabel? It’s about the niche in a large market, the glossy and ads market, and that’s never the philosophy corner.

    • Marian Hennings says

      Women are “less intellectual and less brilliant writers”? Really? You have obviously not read works by Jessica Mitford, Barbara Tuchman, Laurie Garrett, Hillary Mantel, or Alison Weir (the Tudor biographer, not the Israel-Palestine activist with the same name). You need to expand your knowledge of female writers before judging them so harshly.

      • Anna Murphy says

        Did any of you even read the publication? And can any of you who are disputing my observation claim that what I said was untrue? Because then you are saying that this conservative women magazine has great, mentally stimulating writing.

        • D.B. Cooper says

          @Anna Murphy

          For what it’s worth – and I’ve been told it’s very little – my unsought opinion on this foray is that it, at least, appears that much of the problem is people talking past each other. Maybe that’s not the case, but if it is, in my experience this usually occurs as a function of imprecise language and/or a conflation of terms by one or all parties. That is, I don’t get the sense – I’ve been wrong before – that you or anyone dissenting from your view(s) are doing so in bad faith.

          Take, for example, the following passages/terms:

          1) “Women tend to be less intellectual and less brilliant writers

          2) “For every one of those women, there are 20 or more male writers that are their equal, if not, better.

          3) “mentally stimulating writing.

          Save the “less intellectual” comment – which I’ll return to – I think it’s fair to say every other distinction you’ve made (less brilliant; if not better; mentally stimulating) is really just a subjective comparator, i.e., is qualified not quantified. Now, it would be disingenuous for me to pretend I’m a fan of women’s lit, but having said that, it would be nothing less than an abomination of truth for me to pretend that the brilliant writers I enjoy reading, that I think are better and more mentally stimulating are anything other than my own subjective preference(s).

          To be sure, I’m sympathetic to the sentiments you’ve expressed, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest for me to expect, say, my wife to share my sentiments for what constitutes “brilliant” or “mentally stimulating” writing. I would imagine, if I did expect her to read the type of material I enjoy, it would not be unlike the mind-numbing experience I have to hide feel when she makes me watch those damn rom-coms with her. Can I just say, those things are awful, really. Why they’re so appealing, I will never know. In any case, I suspect something similar is afoot between you and your dissenters.

          Oh, and with respect to the question of intelligence. I think, there’s pretty good data to suggest that the average IQ of men & women are more or less the same. Yes, I think the data does suggest that men show a greater variance in the distribution, which would mean women are clustered more towards the center (avg.) and men are found in greater numbers on the tails. But, in any case, I don’t think there’s any difference in the avg. (general) intelligence of men and women.

          • Anna Murphy says

            D.B. Cooper

            Your response proved my point perfectly. Consider the contrast between your thoughtful and meticulous response; where you pointed out the flaw of my observation and offered a counter argument to my point, which didn’t involve an argument from authority.

            How did the other women react? They responded by being defensive and trying to shame me onto their side. Why can’t more women respond in an respectable intellectual manner like you? Are they not interested in dissecting ideas?

            But then I saw the responses from Heike and Peter from Oz, and their responses did make me reconsider that perhaps most males are also as unremarkable as these vapid women, just like them.

          • D.B. Cooper says

            @Anna

            Your response proved my point perfectly.

            Ah, touché… Indeed, I have! You’ve caught me stiff-legged in my own net. But since we’re trafficking in stereotypes – which, I happen to find terribly useful due to their predictive power as a heuristic – allow me to return the favor. It may be the case – though, let me stress, not necessarily the case – that my proving your point by responding to your attribution error with a cogent argument was just as much a function of me being a man, as was you making the error (and the polemics that followed) was a function of you being a female.

            Now, that may sound like a misogynistic comment, but only because it is. But who cares? The only thing that matters is the truth value of a claim. So, is what I said true? In this particular case, I have no idea. Is it true that men tend to think more systematically (reason > emotion), while women tend to think more empathetically (reason < emotion)? Yes, I think the data suggests exactly that. But just to be clear, these are average tendencies within a population distribution; so, as you rightly point out, men are every bit as capable (and more) of histrionic outbursts (not that you did) while mistakenly ‘playing the man instead of the ball’ (which you kind of did). That’s my two cent, anyway.

          • @ D.B. Cooper

            “Women tend to be less intellectual and less brilliant writers…”

            In reply:

            “Yes, I think the data does suggest that men show a greater variance in the distribution, which would mean women are clustered more towards the center (avg.) and men are found in greater numbers on the tails.”

            Yet, one can hardly fail to notice that in Arts and Sciences the most major breakthroughs and the most innovative/fundamental work is by males.

            Almost any great female writer you can name of in any category, you can name a male writer of greater stature.

      • @ Marian Hennings

        “You have obviously not read works by Jessica Mitford, Barbara Tuchman, Laurie Garrett, Hillary Mantel, or Alison Weir ”

        Great writers in their own regards. But hardly a match for the men, if one was to put up a corresponding list.

    • Heike says

      Excellent troll. 9/10. Use the typical Leftist “thought I don’t approve of is intellectually vapid” argument, and then turn right around and use a false flag misogynist argument that the poster must have found galling. Well done. And changing the handle on every thread, that’s a good way to stay hidden.

      • Peter from Oz says

        Heike

        Well spotted. I thought the incongruence between disparagment of conservatism and the denigration of female writers made the trolling a wee bit to obvious,but on the whole it was a fine freestyle effort. It certainly got some bites.
        I did think too D.B. Cooper’s response was a great acknowledgment of the trolling that also managed to get a few good arguments in as well.

        • D.B. Cooper says

          @Peter from Oz

          Pete, are we not in Kansas anymore? God, I bet you get shit like that every other post. I’m sorry, no ashamed to have uttered it, but I refuse to compound my hackneyed salutation by pretending it didn’t happen with the magic of this ‘delete’ button The cover-up is always worse…

          Anyway, I read your comment (a couple times), and despite my best attempts, I wasn’t sure what you were saying, specifically, as it pertains to trolling. I would hope you’re not suggesting that I’ve trolled anyone. If, in fact, that is the case, I’d be interested in knowing what gave you that impression. Again, it’s certainly possible that I’m misreading you, and hopefully that is the case, but I wanted to be sure, either which way.

          • Peter from Oz says

            D.B Barrel Maker

            I was in fact paying you a compliment. I was saying that you had responded with wit to someone else who was undertaking a neat bit of trolling. Your arguments were good and the way you put them was mixed well with just that little bit of self-deprecation that to me showed that you knew that the Murphy person was trolling, but that you could use the occasion of her trolling to make some good points.

          • D.B. Cooper says

            @Pete

            Good man! I certainly appreciate the compliment. I was just misreading you, so that’s on me. But to your point, I was in a discussion with someone on here, not to long ago, and at one point, I took a few jabs with no ill intent – it was in good fun – and I didn’t think much about it, until he later responded with a defensive tone and an underlying context of ‘are you bipolar?

            I mentiion it, only because he misunderstood me, in a similar manner as I just did with you. Just speaking for myself, it’s easy to forget how much information is communicated with nonverbal cues. This medium necessarily doesn’t allow for those nonverbal, conversational implicatures (inferences), which normally help steer a face-to-face dialogue. And so, without those queues things get crossed. Take for example, D.B. Barrel Maker. I have no idea what that means. I’m assuming it’s good, or at least good joke. Now, I’m going to have to google it.

    • Peter from Oz says

      Annabel

      I note that in the kerfuffle you caused with your statement about women writers most people missed the most important word which was ”tend”. Thus if men are more interesting writers 50.01% of the time, your statement is true.
      But I also think that you mistake the writer for the writing.
      Of course a woman writing about recipes or hair colour isn’t going to be as good as a male writer analysing some issue of intellectual importance. But then again a article written by a man about some banal sporting event isn’t going to be as good as a female writer’s essay ona more serious subject.
      Anthony Powell theorised that women tend (there’s that lovely and useful word again) not to be so interested in analysis as men. So it could be that your argument is valid in that more men tend to write about more intellectual subjects. But I’m not sure if there’s really any way of measuring that.
      But did you expect the writing in a woman’s magazine to be an a deep analytical level? Surely the point is that the sort of subjects that are in the women’s sphere are by their very nature quite uncomplicated. The same can be said about men’s interests.
      Writing becomes interesting when it is about things that are more universal in character.

      • D.B. Cooper says

        @Pete

        It’s like I’m stalking you at this point Pete. I swear, I’m well-adjusted as adjustments go.

        But I wanted to piggyback off a something you said, that I originally wanted to mention to Anna, but I guess forgot. You said:

        Anthony Powell theorised that women tend (there’s that lovely and useful word again) not to be so interested in analysis as men.

        While I haven’t conducted a double-blind on this, anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true more often than not. Taking a page from Jonathan Haidt’s work – which I find very persuasive – he (as I recall) describes these differences in tendencies as existing along a spectrum. I think he calls it a Empathizer-Systemizer Scale. In the study I refer to at the bottom, Haidt studies these personality differences in sex, but also in political affiliation. He has a website, yourmorals.org, where you can take a similar survey that he gave during this study and it’ll tell you where your views line up (Conservative – Libertarian – Liberal). As I recall, I was pretty squarely in the Libertarian camp. Anyway, it’s an interesting study as his findings aligned with Powell’s theory as well as what I tend to observed in my day-to-day interactions. Here’s a part of his findings:

        Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology.

        Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians

        • Turd Ferguson says

          You are descended from twice as many women as men. You are descended from men who took risks and women who played it safe. This condition extends into the present culture in myriad ways. Culture are systems to enhance our survival and men are the drivers of these systems. Women were built for intimacy men were built to build and build we have.

  5. Bubblecar says

    Most women I know don’t read any “women’s magazines” and regard the entire genre as trashy, dated and redundant. They might skim through one at the doctor or hairdresser if there’s nothing else to read while waiting, but they do so in the knowledge that they’re looking at fodder intended for stupid people.

    So good luck with your particular offering. It should be easy enough to establish a loyal readership, given that stupid conservatives are just as abundant amongst women as men.

    • Heike says

      Half of people are below average intelligence. Why the withering hatred for ordinary folk? What’s wrong with them? This is the kind of ugly classist bigotry I’d expect from a Democratic presidential campaign, not worldly, educated adults.

      • Peter from Oz says

        Classist? Maybe not. Intellectual snobbery would be a better expression to describe Bubblecar’s little rant.

    • Craig WIllms says

      @ bubble
      you are as tedious as you are predictable. I usually bypass your comments but thought maybe you’d have something interesting to say on this topic. I was wrong.

  6. spartacus says

    For excellent health and fitness advice, I would strongly recommend inviting Dr. Rhonda Patrick (@foundmyfitness, http://www.foundmyfitness.com) to write for you. Or, at least, using her as a resource for your writers.

  7. ga gamba says

    I took a quick look at your site and it has the fashion, beauty, relationship, career, and health facets covered.

    Three areas that seem to go un or less represented are personal finance, hobbies (that aren’t yoga), and work that isn’t tied to an office. I think women could do well for themselves in the trades, be it electrician, plumber, or shoemaker. Interviews with women who do so would be informative. Focus on the practical side of it rather than “A woman challenged a man at welding and triumphed.” Not everyone is going to be the CEO or wants to be a coder. As for hobbies, look at the martial arts, archery, camping, maintaining a vehicle, etc.

    Try to get women to focus their time, effort, and talents on accomplishments that are ignored by the cosmopolitan chattering class.

    Best wishes.

  8. I love your choice for the cover Evie, nice gaze and full lips. Sexy indeed, and not that feminist stuff all the time! (though, did not read your article, is that necessary?)

  9. Rose Clark says

    I think it’s a great idea, but I read half a dozen articles and there’s nothing of substance. The articles are so short, they barely scratch the surface of the idea. On a topic like dating in a hook-up culture, there isn’t enough depth to tell a conservative anything new, or a liberal enough to potentially change her mind. Women reading something as substantial as Quillette will be bored to tears.

    • Stephanie says

      Rose, I suspect the target audience between Evie and Quillette is quite different.

  10. “when Fallon Fox crushed a woman’s skull in the UFC.” Please correct this statement. I am a longtime fan of mixed martial arts (MMA) and have been aware of the Fallon Fox issue for a few years. Fallon Fox has never fought in the Ultimate Fighting Championship promotion (a promotion is a company that stages events and that often retains fighters under exclusive contracts to compete in events they stage), contrary to your claim. This individual has fought women in lesser, local promotions like CFA, but has never, and probably never will, fight, in any events sponsored by the major MMA promotional companies like the UFC. You are detracting from the legitimacy of your arguments by including patently false claims like the one you’ve made about Fallon Fox. You owe your audience a correction.

    • An accurate phrasing would be “when Fallon Fox crushed a woman’s skull in a mixed martial arts (MMA) match.”

    • Heike says

      Give it a rest, to a lot of people the UFC *is* MMA, not some brand.

  11. gz@va says

    I’ve read couple of articles and I agree that they are not especially deep. But then I realized that it’s so nice to just read things, without constant “in the era of Trump” this and “when we face the most daring challenges of climate change” that, so, yeah, I’ll read it, it’s nice.

    • Why, gz, should an article be especially deep? Can’t you see beauty in shallow and superficial ones? Just try! Good for you! Relaxing! All yoga is superficial (but substantial)!

      • Peter from Oz says

        Well said dirk.
        It is far more of a challenge to get something deep out of something shallow than to get something shallow out of something deep. The latter is what many of us do

    • This site has a lot of the same political crap, just from the other side of the aisle. They have articles that are apolitical or that are political but not in an annoying way, and those seem fine, but I don’t want to see someone whining about “Marxist professors” when I’m reading this kind of site. If I’m in the mood for that I can turn on Fox News or read Breitbart.

      Like, you can definitely have articles about politics with a conservative slant, but the way they’re going about it seems clunky. Cosmo has a liberal bias, but when you go to the front page of their website there isn’t anything political, while Evie has an interview with Candace Owens right on the front page. Related: avoid focusing on political figures who are broadly hated. In Cosmo’s political articles, they either talk to regular people (ex. Cosmo has an interview with women who grew up in the purity movement) or liberal celebrities. When they focus on political figures, they usually focus on uncontroversial people who are broadly popular with their target audience like Michelle Obama. I don’t know who’s like that among conservative figures, but it ain’t Owens; it might be best to avoid politicians and commentators. Many articles on Evie have a more subtle political/cultural slant without falling into these pitfalls, they should focus on those instead. The body positivity article was very well done.

  12. Somewoman says

    I liked the magazine. I stopped reading girlie mags in the 90s, but evey now and then I get a look at ones

    In the 90s, girlie mags weren’t really anti feminine or radical feminist or anything. They were basically a ploy to sell you things that lacked in any kind of content. You’d have this seasons “must haves” and it would say turquoise is the thing and list out hundreds of dollars of turquoise things you just must get.

    It was filled with ads and superficial advice on sex positions. I wouldn’t say they encouraged casual sex or really cared about real decision making. But then it didn’t have a bad attitude towards masculinity either. This was 20 years ago.

    Since then here and there I see that some mags have become repositories for sjw propaganda, like teen vogue, little of whose readership is teens.

    I thought evie was cute. I think I’ve aged out of being able to read it and get something out of it. But if I were 25, I think that would have been a good mag for me.

    • That’s interesting, somewoman, these trends. I only read women glossies at the fastfoods where I have to wait sometimes, and last time was really amazed. Where I knew from the women’s weekly I read as a kid, the one of my mother, it was about how to behave as a good housewife, spouse, cook and modinette. But hell what was I reading now? Some married woman, not only dreaming of the sport teacher massaging her, but even going to bed with him. Only once, btw, and then quickly returning to husband and children, though, not at all repenting, nohow, it was splendid, it was exasperating, quite an experience, some sort of Yoga, and…..there came the voice over, French fries, chicken nuggets and frikandel for me!! Next time I have another go.

    • Somewoman, agreed. After being out of the loop for years, I was recently exploring options for a gift subscription for a young relative and was taken aback by how wretchedly political the magazines have become. Glancing at the Seventeen site, all I saw was POC this and POC that. These poor girls today, they can’t even read style tips without getting rammed up the wazzoo with PC.

    • Caligula says

      Aren’t all glossy magazines “basically a ploy to sell you things”? It’s not as if the cover price (or the subscription price, which must also include postage) comes close to covering the publisher’s costs.

      It’s surely no accident that most glossies have the name of a product category on the cover (or of an activity associated with things that need to be purchased). Thus magazines about skiing, bicycling, hiking (etc.) tend to be more about the gear to use than about the activity named on the cover.

      Why would glossy women’s magazines be any different? The question, perhaps, is whether online publications can do better. Certainly some online publishing is little more than clickbait, but, perhaps the economics of online publishing at least make it possible to do better than that.

  13. bumble bee says

    “Millennial women are Evie’s audience, but so are the “Gen Z” women born from the mid-1990s onward.”

    And they have already failed in their intended purpose. So all the other millions of women are what, non existent? They have no claim to anything feminine? No need for anything your so called enlightened new fem-rag thinks it brings to women? Nice, I can pay as much attention to this “new” rag as I have done to all the ones already mentioned.

    • @bumble bee

      This grates me too. It seems women over 40 are a non-existent category. And if we do exist it’s as punching bags of younger women in their desperate search from meaning. “Racist First Wave!” “Evil Second Wave!” they shout at us, while they enjoy all the rights provided by the previous generations. I really think we need to bring back respect for age and have the younger generation take a seat and listen (their favorite expression). We have something to say too, and it’s a lot.

      • lazypadawan says

        Same for me! Ageism, the final frontier in women’s mags. They assume as soon as you’re 40, you become irrelevant.

        • Stephanie says

          Ladies, you might be overreacting. The reason that these sorts of magazines are geared towards young women is because they are the ones who need intro-level material on style, relationships, and culture.

          Take a look at the website and see if it suits your sophisticated tastes or can teach you anything new at the level you’ve come to expect. I’m in my late 20s and I felt too old for Evie. If you want a publication for older women, you’re already here. It’s okay to let the young ladies have spaces to sort themselves out.

      • Usually agreeable says

        Right on Krizo! Life learning just takes that long.

  14. I would pay to subscribe to Quillette if it meant I didn’t have to see any more paid content.

  15. Constantin says

    Perhaps aiming to be non-ideological might be better. The market will decide. Good luck!

  16. peanut gallery says

    The link for Fallon Fox doesn’t actually say anything about crushing a skull.

  17. E. Olson says

    “Men now can sleep with countless women without emotional attachment or consequences.”

    No consequences? How about being accused of rape some days, weeks, or years later? How about being thrown out of school with no chance to defend yourself against false charges? How about losing a job or being fired? How about spending time in jail, because women never lie?

    Perhaps the many forms of harm that false accusations of rape and sexual harassment bring to real victims of rape and sexual harassment, to men, to dating dynamics, and to career mentoring (aka the Pence rule) might be a good topic to cover in your magazine.

    • Sexual harassment?? Hahaha, today, a Dutch teacher was suspended from his job, and sent home with early pension because he was trapped at reading a Playboy in classroom (and, btw, the playboys nowadays are rather prudent, not what they were in my time, with real naked women in it displayed). What was not clear to me, who was seeing him reading? And why report such thing?
      Any Dutchmen here knowing more about this?

      • E. Olson says

        I always thought that people read Playboy for the articles.

      • I now see it was not reported, but put online, as always of course. And the mag was a nude woman one, but not Playboy.

    • Caligula says

      Umm, really, it’s not necessary to actually sleep with a woman to be accused of rape (or at least harassment). In a culture that rewards and valorizes victimhood, sometimes it’s not necessary to do anything at all.

      Yet the theory of criminal deterrence is based on the assumption that although some would not commit the crime even if there were no punishment, and others may commit a crime regardless of the punishment, there are many who might do so yet are deterred by the possibility of punishment.

      Yet when “always believe the accuser” ideology triumphs, the innocent are treated no differently than the guilty. Or perpahs worse, if they are punished for protesting their innocence. Which (as anyone who’s read Kafka knows) can only be taken as evidence their guilt.

      Thus, a system of “justice” that does not recognize the possibility of an accused’s innocence is, by erasing the distinction between guilt and innocence, one that must destroy deterrence from any potential criminal’s pre-crime calculations.

  18. Ray Andrews says

    @E. Olson

    The young men that I know view it fatalistically. Like riding a motorcycle, it’s fun but dangerous and when that lady turns left in front of you you’re likely to be dead but try not to think about that and enjoy your ride while you can. A nephew of mine enjoyed many free rides, but got stung last year. Assault! It was absolute baloney but as you say women never lie. It cost him about 5 grand in legal fees, a few dozen hours of grief, and he had to write an essay for the prosecutor promising to stop assaulting the chicks he picks up in the legion.

    Oh, the ‘assault’ was him — this is agreed fact — nibbling on her ear while she sat in his lap. But he didn’t ask first, and so that’s sexual assault. Really.

  19. Sydney says

    I looked at your site to see how you were handling abortion. I regret to say it’s warmed-over leftovers from every other past decade of anti-choice propaganda (and I’ve seen it all). No new thinking in ‘Evie’!

    If “women need a magazine that doesn’t lie to them”, then why are you continuing dusty, cobweb-sticky old lies about pregnancy termination?

    I fled the left, but I’m forever reminded that I’m not on the right. Straight ahead, matey!

    • Stephanie says

      Sydney, your comment would be more useful if you pointed out what these lines are.

  20. Men now can sleep with countless women without emotional attachment or consequences. The joke’s on us. “Liberation” was a genius idea for men, but it’s left women devastated and empty.

    This essentialism is a lie. Just type the word “porn” into google.

    • Song For the Deaf says

      I swear, we must have had the shortest period of relevance of all the generations currently alive. The Boomers didn’t let go the reins until about 20 years ago, then we had about 5-10 years at the top, then the Gen Z crowd started calling us irrelevant. Sad!

  21. Jean-Pierre Demers says

    “Third-wave feminism” is when man-hating lesbians have taken over, I think we should be mindful of that…

  22. E. Olson says

    Some more cover story ideas for a realism based woman’s magazine:

    “How I got below 200 lbs in only 72 weeks!!!”

    “Social Justice Warrior today, Lonely Cat Lady tomorrow”.

    “10 sexy looks from Walmart”.

    “10 lowest paid college majors, and why women dominate them.”

    “Locker room etiquette when the woman in the shower next to you has a penis”.

    “Free stuff from the government isn’t actually free”.

    “The Surprising Truth: dressing like a slut does mean most people will think you are a slut”.

    “Successful women in politics without a rich or powerful husband: the Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley stories – not who you expected right?”

    • Saw file says

      @E.Olson
      Ahumm…always should be, ‘The Top 10’ list.
      You only have eight.
      Suggest:
      “White bread is unhealthy because it’s inherently a racist baking construct. Here’s what you need to know about the social health benefits of intersectional multi-grain”
      “Here’s what you need to know about intersectional sky diving, and why it’s important to understand that pyramidal inversions are the ultimate 3way”
      “Matches promote domestic violence because they normalize striking”
      ” How men appropriated the skirt, and use their misogyny to make it WORK! Kilts, cossacks, lungi and sarongs”
      “Why carrots are a threat to all women without knife skills. Cooking with Lareana Bobbitt”
      “Barefoot and pregnant. It’s not just for ‘women’ anymore.”
      To quote a great cable guy philoprofessizer: “I can do this all day”
      Btw…thx for the chuckles.

  23. Lightning Rose says

    Since at least the early 70’s, “women’s magazines” have been in the vanguard of the Left’s race to the bottom in normalizing self-destructive and socially destabilizing behaviors. Promiscuity, complicity with objectification, unhealthy dietary and sexual practices, abdication of responsibility for “health,” especially mental, to professionals; and denigration of those women who choose a more conventionally traditional life. While SHAMELESSLY shilling for Big Pharma, plastic surgery, looks-ism, conformity, “putting out” whether one wants to or not, and the odious idea that if one doesn’t “Have It All” by 35, one is a failure as a woman. Wonder how many suicides, really, were prompted by these condescending rags and the “advice” they offer?

    The irony dawned on me at about age 30, seeing an article on “wild, free, crazy sex” on one page, while on the facing page a finger-wagging doctor scared you to death about STD’s and AIDS.

    Confident, self-secure women don’t need to buy goofy junk to “perfect” themselves, to become acceptable to others or some fad idea of “attractive.” They need to stay away from infecting themselves with pseudoscience and moonbattery. These anachronistic mags need to go the way of the soap opera and the vibrating reducing band.

    • Great characterisation of the mags. They’re all still at it, even the most avowedly feminist, and it’s all couched in the BS of “empowerment”. Predictable but quite toxic.

  24. Women may need a magazine that does not lie to them but they may not want one I am afraid. In my experience the flatterers are always more popular no matter how patently insincere the are. Although I do wish this venture well.

  25. R Henry says

    “The women of Evie are socially and ethnically diverse. We’re free thinkers, unbeholden to any political doctrine. We’re “conservative” to the extent we generally believe in hard work and refuse to play the victim.”

    Nope, no contradiction here. The notion that social or ethnic “diversity” is vitally important, is itself a Lefty political philosophy, with no basis in fact. The goal should be to have fantastic writers and thinkers on staff…all them…no diversity!

    • This whole idea of diversity as vitally important, where does it come from? I have worked and lived in Latin America, Africa and Indonesia, and can’t remember that diversity was discussed there, or of any importance. There was a diversity, yes, in Peru there were Jivaro headhunters, indios bravos, Limenos, Europeans, Basques (Reateguis), criollos, mixed bloods, Japanese, you name it, but, really, never, ever, I’ve heard people speak there about the virtues or disadvantages of diversity. Of course, I know, it’s something American, of the Californian jetset, or of the East Coast yups ( because, I think, even in the Mid West, it doesn’t exist, not an issue there, am I right?? Or missing something?)

      • R Henry says

        No, you are not missing anything. The calls for “diversity” are an attempt by self-hating white Americans to assuage their self-imposed collective guilt for slavery.

  26. emanations & penumbras says

    “Modern men are reaping the “benefits” of sexual liberation because women have bought into the lie that men and women respond the same way to intimacy. Men now can sleep with countless women without emotional attachment or consequences. The joke’s on us. “Liberation” was a genius idea for men, but it’s left women devastated and empty.”

    I can’t believe anyone could regurgitate this bullshit canard that’s been around since the early 70s in Midge Decter’s “The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women’s Liberation”. The real truth is that a HANDFUL of men now can sleep with countless women without emotional attachment or consequences. The rest of us not only have to do without, but have to deal with those who in an earlier time might have been our mates now competing with us ferociously for jobs and economic and political power, not to mention run the risk of having our lives ruined by a scurrilous charge of “sexual harassment” in an environment where whatever she says is assumed to be true.

    • This is true. Women disproportionately reward the top 5-10% of men with sex. The bottom 90% of men have to make do with scraps or the clapped-out women who, after having the best, will never be satisfied with an ordinary mortal.

    • Peter from Oz says

      Completely missed the point didn’t you? It doesn’t matter if it is only a small number of men who get the benefit of sleeping with lots of women. The point is that more women are now sleeping with men and not getting the emotional attachment they need.

      • emanations & penumbras says

        No, I didn’t miss the point. What you note has been going on for many years now. I just pointed out that the author claimed the benefits of this arrangement accrue to men in general, but that was true only for a small subset.

  27. Marialice Morales says

    Hmmm. Just turned 66. Just retired. Just became a grandmother. To all you young women, stay home as long as you can with your kids – there are no better days than those. Love your husband. Smile. Pray at sunrise and realize just how special being female is. Life just is not that complicated. Keep it simple. Love to you all.

    • @Marialice: did you already consider writing for Evie? A column or what? Reflections? To counterbalance? Try!

  28. Persecution and the Art of Science says

    More sponsored content from the Knitting Moms at Quillette.

  29. Song For the Deaf says

    Can’t wait to see what a conservative version of “Ten Ways to Drive Your Man Wild in Bed!” will look like.

    Although we’ll probably never know, since this magazine doesn’t sound terribly conservative. Realism about the sexual marketplace is nice and better than what the rest have on offer but that doesn’t make you conservative. Having a good work ethic and opposing victimhood politics are nice but that doesn’t make you conservative either. Y’all support or oppose gay marriage and legal abortion?

    I forget who said that all organizations not explicitly conservative eventually become liberal (Jerry Pournelle?), but this looks like another one of those cases. Expect articles spotlighting lonely teen trannies in 3-5 years.

      • Saw file says

        @Song for the Deaf
        Haha…it appears that somebody used my handle to take a couple of yips at you

  30. Saw file says

    I mostly look at mags for the photography.
    There are very few places that real photographers can exibt their craft anymore.
    Sure, the models are often’hot’, but the photography …omg
    Either you understand, or don’t…

  31. I wish all the best. Please consider including science and skepticism in your publication(if you don’t already do that).

  32. V 2.0 says

    I clicked on this article hoping for something more interesting than the usual ‘third wave feminism is silly’ (which it is) so let’s go back to gender roles (which seems to mean somewhere between 1945 and 1959). There is nothing inherently evil about gender roles. Most people seem to enjoy them in varying degrees. I don’t think the majority of us, however, want them to become a prison again. In other words, I like to wear cure shoes as much as the next girl but I don’t want to have to wait around for some man to buy them for me. Maybe I’m biased because I’m not that attractive and no man has ever offered to fix my car or buy me a house in the suburbs (and frankly, life is better being able to take care of these things for myself).

    If any other women are thinking of starting a magazine for women that doesn’t toe the feminist line but is more interesting than this I would pay good money for something featuring pictures of naked men and serious (and I mean serious, as in the opposite of Jezebel, etc) journalism.

  33. Usually agreeable says

    From an article on How to get rid of your Cellulite in this magazine:

    “I read that white foods are HORRIBLE for cellulite. I cut them out immediately. This includes (processed white foods) sugar, white rice, yogurt, milk, bread, pasta, cheese, etc.”

    Pushing same old garbage, just under a new label!

    And here’s more intelligent commentary on red lips.

    “Makeup artist and founder of the brand that bears her name, Bobbi Brown said: “Nothing says confidence and glamour like a classic red lip.” Legendary fashion designer Bill Blass said, “when in doubt, wear red.””

    Check out the other enlightened and bold articles.

    https://www.eviemagazine.com/

  34. ” But at Evie, we never tell anyone how to think. We don’t patronize, and we don’t judge. The advice comes from a place of love, backed by data and rooted in truth.”

    Yeah right!

    It is just a conservative-light magazine aimed at women. A response to those leftie magazine you mentioned. This spiel is just that – marketing nonsense. Evie is rooted in ideology – even the fucking name screams it out. And you are a tit-for-tat response magazine. So you will try to counter-argue progressive left.

    “we never tell anyone how to think”

    Huh? But it does EXACTLY that. See Lauren Chen column as an example.

    Helpful hint: Candace Owens is just plain dumb.

  35. Nope. It isn’t that. It is light-conservative trying desperately to look “cool”.

  36. Sohan says

    I put myself through the ordeal of reading a couple of articles in your magazine, and all I see is rehashed reactionary tosh built on cherry-picked bias-confirming source material sprinkled with some fashion/beauty content to try to make it look less soapbox-ish. Trying to fight Lefty ideological bullshit with Righty ideological bullshit … yeah, that’s what we need.

  37. craiglgood says

    The biggest problem with most “women’s magazines” isn’t the politics, but the selling of pseudoscientific bullshit. I hope your magazine gives no oxygen to SCAM (So-called Complementary Medicine), anti-vax nutjobs, food fads, or anything remotely resembling Goop.

  38. Food fads never fail in women’s magazines, I wonder what that is all about, and why women are so found of it. Avocado, quinoa, forgotten vegetables like kale and other rabbit food,argan oil from the Maroccan desert, organic mushrooms and even fish (as if there are also inorganic snappers), grassfed steaks, milk from cows that feel happy and free, happy broilers kept in the open under the sun, you name it, all devoured by happy and alternative women, mostly garnered with magnificent illustrations, mouth watering and mind softening.

  39. Women's Mags Filled with Lies? Yes, but... says

    …I have a problem with the premise of the new magazine or article which is “look at all these lies and bogus standards these other women’s magazines deal in, and the harm it does to women… the solution is another magazine.”

    I get that women (or men for that matter) might take an interest in the topics covered in these magazines while they wait at the doctor’s office or are on a flight to wherever, reading them on the premise some article might help them solve some weight struggle or fix some bad relationship or whatever. This is the worst assumption made in the history of assumptions and for some reason, no matter how much these magazines don’t work / don’t really help people, they keep selling.

    Let’s say you’re sitting on a park bench one day, having a good think about some problem that’s really bugging you. A person sits down on the other side of the bench and through the usual pleasantries you strike up a conversation. You tell this person at some point you’re going through X and having a tough go finding the right solution (i.e. stuff you’ve tried doesn’t work).

    Then the person says “I have the solution for you; do you want to know what it is?” Naturally your intrigued. Yes, you want to know so you ask.

    And their advice is: there’s this person out there. They’ve never met you, they know nothing about you, or the person(s) involved in your problem (if there are any) and they’ve got some overly-broad and stereotypical anecdotes… compiled from workplace here-say, their friends and family who know nothing about you or your situation, [insert your favorite morning “news” show here], and from their “amazing” minister / shrink / shaman / guru, who does “such good work” also knows you and what makes you tick not at all. All you have to do is go read this article they wrote and follow the advice and your problem is fixed.

    Would you think that person across from you was:
    a) someone who really knows what they’re talking about
    b) well-meaning but a little overly-optimistic about the article
    c) well-meaning and also completely delusional because complex personal issues don’t get solved through vagaries and anecdotes

    Every author of every woman’s self-help article ever written… they’re the person described above. They have NO F-ING CLUE how to solve your problem because they don’t know YOU or the details of your situation. Whether it’s diet and weight loss, relationships and sex, whatever, the only solutions that work are the ones customized to you history, your environment, your strengths and weaknesses, and no mag writer has any f-ing clue about those things 999 times out of 1000. Sure there may be some random person(s) out there whose lives perfectly fit the anecdotes but why would anyone assume that’s the rule and not the rare exception? ; )

    Better solution: don’t piss your money away on women’s (or men’s) magazines. Talk to people who really know you and are really qualified to help you in some meaningful way. Then take that money you saved and make a car payment with it, take a flight somewhere, etc.

    You’re welcome.

  40. Oh my fucking god quillette seriously? This is on the home page: HEALTH
    “The Pill” Is Destroying Our Bodies And Everyone Is Ignoring It For Money

    • Didn’t you know that, Rose? Docters are saying it all the time, last years, and good that Evie wraps it again in some soothing leaves, good for you, and your body, all the same!

  41. Skept-O-Punk says

    If it is true that “politics runs downstream from popular culture” (and I believe it is true), I definitely applaud this magazine.

    Online, it seems to be an observable fact that Conservative/Libertarian/Classical Liberal types do seem to meme better than the Far-Left, but when it comes to other forms of pop culture, I — as a fiscal conservative/entrepreneurial capitalist — find other areas of pop culture severely lacking in many ways. Perhaps this is because those more to the Right engaged in the arts are working too hard to counter the Far-Left’s indoctrination pushing 3rd Wave feminism and Socialism. I don’t think you need to necessarily insert conservative messages in your work, just simply remove the far-leftist indoctrination. Also, as a non-religious person (somewhere between atheist and agnostic), I find Christian films with their squeaky-clean wholesomeness and often overt preaching to be painfully obnoxious. I seek the occasional F-Bomb WITHOUT the Socialist propaganda, thank you. lol!!! Nearly 100% of the content Netflix pushes a far-left agenda. It is insane how overt it is. (And by the way, as I’ve said, I’m not religious — but what is with the never-ending Satanism/Occult on NFlix? Is there some sort of agenda there?)

    So far the Right has failed fairly miserably to create decent pop entertainment. I think this is simply an issue of too small of a pool of talent to draw from as the vast majority of truly talented artists, musicians, actors, producers, writers, et al are simply naturally drawn to the Left as are academics. (It is a personality type, I guess.) Greg Gutfeld, Steven Crowder, et al are only mildly amusing at best and, once again, seem to work too hard for it. Of course the Leftist’s Trump-Derangement-Syndrome infused Hate-Fests on Late-Night & SNL (and similar) are certainly not funny at all either, to be sure. (Not long ago I watched some of David Letterman’s latest stuff — I grew up on Dave and loved him. GOD! It was painful to watch him now as one could definitely observe the mean-spiritedness that had crept into his schtick. He couldn’t veil his contempt for Conservatives and of course for Trump.

    Personally I went to a music school (a waste of time of epic proportions) and of course was surrounded by hordes of far-left individuals. The majority of them had one major point in common: They were nearly imbecilic when it came to actually knowing the facts and were all just a mass of sheep-like ideologues embracing what was “cool” and clearly acceptable in that specific culture. For a segment of the population that wants to view themselves as “rebels”, “creatives” and “free-thinkers” you will not find a crowd who more hungrily seek approval of others and a willingness to engage in group-think than you will in the arts of all genres and types. In the end, true innovators and free-thinkers are extremely rare, and the rest in the arts are simply people jumping on the artistic band-wagon that has currently shown to be commercially viable. This is why we’re surrounded by pop music that all sounds the same, films that follow the same tried-and-true formula, etc. The true innovators and creatives are the starving-artists as they’re not only “ahead of their time”, they’re also typically ahead of the commercial payoff.

  42. Black Swamp Meadery says

    “Conservatives will never win if they imagine themselves as combatants atop defensive battlements, hurling abuse on the mass media. We need to involve ourselves in the creation of pop culture, and thereby help change how that category is defined.” – Well said

Comments are closed.