All about Evie

*

Evie is a women’s lifestyle magazine that is pitched as “right-wing” and “non-woke”—or “feminine” (gender binary, I guess). It’s actually on the left—not in subjective terms but as regards my objective grounds for what the left is “detachment from reality”.

It’s detached from reality because it’s a women’s lifestyle business that is not just about fashion, make-up, and boys but mainly about “the idea”—who else thinks like that? The left. It’s the left that says “it’s Cosmopolitan magazine—but feminist” (I don’t want to read it, thanks—I want to read “1001 ways to make your man orgasm”, not a lecture from some harridan with a wizened pussy).

You can tell Evie is detached from reality because it launched as a magazine. “Er, like, hello? It’s 2023—1998 called, it wants its magazine back.” And, indeed, Evie looks like it comes from 1998—I suppose it’s for women aged 18-35 who have nostalgia for their early childhoods (or their older sister’s childhood…). I have no idea where “women’s lifestyle” is at the moment—but if it’s anywhere, it’s on TikTok.

So it’s idea first, profit last—so it’s a lecture, it’s the Puritans, it’s didactic. The problems with this approach emerge—for example, the Barbie film, whether you like it or not, is “an event”; and as a media company you’re obliged to cover it—but, of course, it’s a feminist film…so you have to take a critical slant on that….

If you’re running an actual business, your coverage better be sharp, fresh, and relevant to your audience—it better attract your key demographic…but it’s not. Because it’s not a real lifestyle magazine, it’s not a real business—it has to take “the angle”, just like The Guardian has to give “the angle” to any event.

It means you’ve deviated from reality—the reality is that if you run a media company it should appeal to the maximum market share; it should maximise profits. That’s reality—that’s “right-wing”, if you like.

Hence The Guardian isn’t a real business, as you can tell from the begging letters on its website and its sponsorship by the Scott Trust and the massive state ad subsidy it gets (all those ads for social workers)—it exists to propagandise you into ideas that deviate from reality (nobody would pay for The Guardian except as religious duty, it’s worthless drivel).

**

What is a “right-wing” woman? A virtuous woman. What is that? Well, it practically doesn’t mean anything at all in this day and age because women are “emancipated” and can do whatever they want—“do it like a dude”, as I believe Jessie J put it. Hell, even the Amish are on TikTok last time I looked (“It’s not your granpaw’s horse and cart”).

A virtuous woman wouldn’t read lifestyle magazines, full stop. She would stay at home, look after the children, knit, and, if there was spare time, practice music or read some edifying religious literature.

Oh, you’re very boring…it’s not 1860 anymore, you know…

Oh, so you want me to “get with the times”—so why are you engaged in this charade? Why not run a proper lifestyle business—why not cover twerking and Barbie, because that’s what the market wants?

The point is: if you’re going to do something do it properly or not at all—it’s the old Dante point, better to go all the way in and be damned than to be lukewarm. So if you’re doing women’s lifestyle media, do it is as a proper business—which will be, as the right says, “degenerate” today; but at least it’s real—it’s virtuous in business terms, in business reality (and so, overall, will be less bad than any “lecture”—because reality will prune out the bullshit in the end).

The right is for virtue—virtue is effective action. In business, in the media business, that means to maximise profits and to put as many eyes on the screen as possible for as long as possible. In family life, that means that women are chaste, loyal, and family-orientated—so an effective, virtuous woman…doesn’t read “lifestyle” products at all. Because what she’s effective at is motherhood, and what a man is effective at is business.