Make Magazine Exclusion- Updated October 26th 2016
- Make Magazine's print edition has content guidelines in order to stay classroom friendly. This is both self-evident and standard publishing industry practice.
- Those guidelines match the student dress code in conservative American school districts. In order to avoid the legal and social liability of telling women their appearance is why their project or photo can't be featured- and letting them make adjustments, Make "overlooks" (ignores) them.
- As an analogy; if you give a donut to every coworker every Friday- except one, that's social exclusion, and still aggression. "OMG I didn't notice you" is not a credible excuse unless the excluded coworker is plausibly less noticeable than the coworkers you are sharing with. Likewise "well you didn't ask for a donut" is not acceptable unless everyone was expected to ask and not given a donut otherwise.
- Since women's Making has evolved in the last decade to increasingly become about Cosplay, Festival/Ravewear, Wearables and Disruptive Fashion, it means that the majority of female Makers can no longer be featured in Make under their current guidelines. We know this because revealing fashion in these very popular areas is never shown in print. Experimental Fashion is almost never classroom appropriate.
- As we all know, women are disproportionally effected by dress codes and decency standards. This pattern of exclusion is harmful because many female Makers are also vlogers, performers, authors and educators, and a feature in Make Magazine can have a significant effect on their careers and income.
- I maintain that while keeping Make Magazine on the shelves in conservative school districts is something we all want, Make disclosing it's content guidelines is less harmful than the current silent exclusion of a large part of our community.
- I think most women, even if we strongly disagree with the current Make Magazine modesty standards can make some adjustments to a project if it means the opportunity to inspire young people. We should at the very least be given the opportunity to make the choice.
- Given that the current guidelines appear to spill over into projects dealing with sexuality and women's health, a yearly special edition of Make for topics their conservative subscribers can't tolerate, would be welcomed by many.
- Just for the record, I'm a huge Make Magazine fan- I just want to see it better represent the young women who are actually Making things right now, not some academic ideal of an "appropriate role model" whom they think *should* represent female Makers. I think Make can do that without offending conservative sensibilities if they are just a bit more transparent about what they need.
- In the end- if a "bad" role model is transgressing in relatively harmless ways through use of technology, she's a pretty good role model. We can't tell young women to be disruptive and assertive, then punish them with exclusion when they are.
RAW Paste Data