for 25 March 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Subject: New Girl Order

Interesting article.... I
just recently was exposed to
Bust magazine (actually the
day before your article
appeared on Suck) and,
although oddly attracted to
its devil-may-care
insouciance and
"it's-all-about-me"
empowerment, I did notice a
couple of problems. You
articulated my worries well,
but another issue you didn't
address was the a priori
assumption that all men
approach sexuality exactly
the same. We are battling
against a male populace that,
without exception, is
interested in fucking women.
Game over. But I feel this
assumption shortchanges men,
much in the same way the
assumption that all feminists
are angry, bisexual women
shortchanges us.

Thanks,
Vanessa
<vanessac@jtpr.com>

Well, Bust's attempt to
imagine male sexuality, even
(let's say) a white boho
straight male sexuality, is a
start. There are habits and
forces (having skin and an
imagination, reading about
sex, being admonished by
religion, dealing with other
people, falling in love) that
stimulate and shape that
sexuality. In order to
imagine a more powerful and
aggressive female desire,
Bust reflects on and
fantasizes about this male
sexuality, which is itself
the product of fantasies made
concrete. The result is a
vision of male desire that
seems intense but feels
weird, sick, and hollow;
would anyone want to fuck the
inhabitants of a world like
that? Are we somehow their
mirror image? Is this really
the way it is?

Hypatia

You are amazing. I think the
piece on the Bust "fanzine"
was absolutely fucking
amazing. It was poignant, and
right on the money about
something most people don't
want to touch with a 10-foot
pole. Is Suck content
exclusive? Can I reprint this
in an upcoming issue of a
friend's fanzine? That column
was so dead on the money as
to what's being $old as the
happily marketable image for
women. It's as dehumanizing
as it is unempowering,
allowing women only to
express themselves, as you
said, "in an instantly
accessible language of
liberation for these 'sexual
revolutionaries.'" I think it
goes (almost) just as far to
ignore the problem of
existent inequalities to deal
with them in this manner. Why
aren't there any 'zines that
say "I like myself, and I'm
capable of being entertaining
without having to 'work it'
in a male-dominated system"?
The guerilla tactics of
makeup (not to mention
foundation!) are not
empowering! I think it is
bullshit that 'zines like
this always have to paint the
"strong, 'you go girl'" woman
as having a sexually
voracious appetite and that
they couch every argument in
traditionally heterosexist
terminology. It's as if they
say, "Go on, show what a
strong person you are by
fucking and leaving HIM" in
the morning," as if that is
some way to teach a lesson.
Fuck that shit! You rock! I
run a small record label -
would you want to have a
column on our Web site?
Whatever. Regardless. An
amazing, succinct piece that
doesn't pander to the
audience, male or female.
Bravo (consider this praise
and admiration for a job well
done).

Cheesesteak Mike
BANKSHOT! Records

Glad you liked it! I guess
I'm wondering how makeup and
a lot of sex could be an
option without aping the
worst of het culture;
Rollerderby and Maxine offer
some answers. Oh, and Suck
pieces are copyrighted but
feel free to rip off the
ideas! Here are a few more
hints: Susie Bright, Laura
Kipnis, Pat Califia.

Hypatia,
I really enjoyed your article
on Bust ...

When I picked Bust up for the
first time last month (the
very same issue you
discussed), I was torn
somewhat by the magazine's
take on things and found
myself growing frustrated
with it, but for reasons
somewhat different than
yours. At first I found
myself cheering and hoorahing
for the late '90s feminist
bad girls, but slowly but
surely my stomach turned.
Instead of feeling
emancipated, I felt creepy
and yucky. I understand the
it was the SEX issue and
hence about SEX. However, it
was SO HETERO, so SINGLE-GIRL
SEX, so ONE-NITE STAND, that
I ended up thinking the whole
thing was a shade irritating.
Some of the free-lovathon's
sounded suspiciously like
rape or damn near close ...
the casual, fun-loving
attitude about porn made me
fairly sick to my stomach,
and the dreamscape about male
strippers was idiotic and
putrid. I certainly
understand where the women
are coming from and agreed
with many of their
sentiments.... BUT just
because I am not going to
start picketing adult video
stores any time soon does NOT
mean that I think that most
pornography isn't offensive.
And just because I don't
think exotic dancers are
"sluts" does not mean I
fantasize about going to the
indie Chippendales. And just
because I don't think women
and girls who are promiscuous
"get what they deserve" if
they are raped or assaulted,
does not mean I would suggest
that it would be very modern
and sexually liberating to
drink a bottle of Wild Turkey
and offer myself to get
handcuffed to a kitchen
appliance by a stranger.

After reading "New Girl
Order," I found even more
important reasons to be
disappointed with the
magazine. Bust is definitely
only liberating for the
white, hetero, middle-class
"girl" population. The
feminist issues it discusses
hardly encompass most women
either globally OR
nationally. To even have the
free time to worry about who
one WANTS to fuck is a
privilege most women don't
have. The magazine caters to
the "girl" with the most free
time....

By the way, I wonder if you
agree with my opinion that the
girl-this and girl-that thing
has gone way overboard. In a
society that is already
obsessed with you, I don't
need one more reminder that
I'm NOT a GIRL by calling
myself a "GIRL."

Thank you again for the
provoking article, Hypatia.

Bianca Galladora
<splianka@hotmail.com>

My guess is that the people
at Bust understand your
viewpoint and are trying to
offer an alternative that
takes sex seriously. In
comparison to the stunningly
powerful (negative and
positive) images of popular
sexual culture, feminism
sometimes offers nothing but
moralizing - it's not enough
to go out and tell people to
have "real" sex or to just
"empower" themselves, and
Bust does address this. That
they end up reading like a
slightly rougher version of
Cosmo means they still
haven't answered your
questions.

Your contributor forgot these book titles:

The Suckhead (with
posthumously published
forward by Ayn Rand),
Suckanetics, Filler for Fun
and Profit, Everything You
Ever Wanted to Know about
Suck But Were Afraid to Ask,
John Grisham's The Suckster,
and the upcoming computer
game, Where in Filler Is
Carmen Sandiego?

Steve Anichini

P. S. Today's Filler was brilliance.

Speaking of
Everything You Ever Wanted to
Know about Suck ...

Dear Sucksters:

Reading Suck has
become a daily ritual for me.
I enjoy your caustic
commentary so much that I
often find myself looking
through the archives to see
what morsels of spite I may
have missed. Although I find
this orgy of cynicism a quite
satisfying diversion, I find
that I usually feel dirty
afterward. I also find myself
wondering whether the Suck o'
the day was written to amuse
people like me or to make fun
of people like me. Basically
then I feel shitty until the
fresh Suck arrives and I
restart the vicious cycle.

Keep up the good work, J.

J. Lewis

P. S. Please try to
incorporate MORE 2-by-2
matrixes (e.g., the
Shiny/Useful chart). I find
them useful reference
material for making snap
judgments about others.

If you feel dirty right after
you read Suck, just imagine
how dirty we feel all the time!

To answer your
question, though: Suck is
written to make fun of people
like you.

But we wouldn't
know how to make fun of
people like you if we weren't
people like you. So, you see,
we're all laughing together,
at ourselves. Ha ha ha. We're
so stupid. Only we're
laughing at you a little bit
louder, secretly, under our
breath. Ha ha ha. You're so stupid.

We're also laughing
at how mean we are. Ha ha ha.
We're real jerks.

But we admire your thirst for snap
judgments. More charts on the
way - in the meantime, you
might try building a healthy
resentment for Dawson's
Creek, Significant Others,
and everyone at the Oscars
wearing a dress priced at
over US$5,000. Bonus Snap
Judgment Topic du Jour:
What's with the recent
embrace of Filthy Excess,
anyway? (Discuss amongst
yourselves.)

Hit & Run

Thank you for calling me "normally
effusive." I thought I was
abnormally so. And let me
tell you one thing - I wash
bottles for fun, not profit!

Seriously ... I never got
your email that you spoke
about in Thursday's column
... or else I would have
responded in kind.

Yours, and
unemployed, and happily
living in Los Angeles....

Dan Koeppel
P. S. Got any filthy
bottles over there that need
scrubbing? I'll wear my
cutest apron.

As a matter of
fact, we do! Piles of 'em.

Is that apron gingham by any
chance?