Switch Hit

Bumped into author/columnist Rebecca Eckler the other night at the Citytv/Star! film festival shmooze -- the oysters and salmon tartare were for dying, dahlings -- and tried to pump her for the 411 on her next career move.

I'd picked up rumours that, since being busted to freelance status by the National Post, she was in talks with the Globe and Mail. But that hardly made sense since the paper couldn't possibly be big enough for both her and her good buddy Leah McLaren.

Beck said she couldn't tell me what was up but she promised to let me be the first to know next week.

Well I couldn't wait.

I'm hearing it's Maclean's magazine. Figures. It was editor Ken Whyte who first tapped her as a columnist when he was running the Post. And, now that he's tossing out most of the staffers who were at the magazine before he assumed the publisher/editor job last March, he must have plenty of empty masthead space.

Comments

[Randy Pantz]

Jesus flippin' Christ, Eckler?! It looks as though the dumbasses (Whyte in particular) at Maclean's didn't learn anything from running that dreadful Rosemary Sexton piece? NO ONE CARES, people! Rumours, gossip and crap, oh my! Is it 1985 again? Arrgghhh!

[Randy]

I agree with hiring Feschuck, but Eckler?? I can't see Maclean's readers getting into trashy columns on appropriate footware or getting knocked-up.

I'm not a big fan of the "Candace Bushnell North" idea, but give McLaren her due, she can actually write. Eckler, though, is entirely without talent.

[God]

This displeaseth Me mightily. Don't get me wrong, I love all of My children, but I must say that this particular daughter's writing is tepid and impossibly self-centered. Also, My business advisor questions the logic of bailing out a sickly publication with hires from a failed one.

But then, what do I know. I created purse pooches.

[Antonia Z.]

What is it about these two young women that inspires such venom? Could it be ssssssssssssssexism?

Let me be clear: Eckler is a hard-working reporter who has produced some of the most entertaining reads that I have ever come across in any Canadian paper. Give the girl some credit.

[postie]

Silly me! When you wrote "he must have plenty of empty masthead space" I mistakenly read "he must want plenty of empty head space."

Glad I cleared that up. I'd hate to have gotten the wrong impression of the illustrious Ms. Eckler.

Ms. Zerbisias, I really like your blog, but please don't play the "sexist" card at the drop of a hat. It only cheapens that important word's value when it actually is in play.

If you want me to provide you with a list of male columnists that I think are talentless, I'd be happy to. It doesn't take a skewed, misogynistic outlook on life to think Eckler has no talent. All it takes is a pair of eyes and a fourth-grade reading comprehension.

For what it's worth, the commenter earlier was bang on - they both annoy me, but at least Leah McLaren can write.

How can you acuse someone who says he/she likes McLaren's writing but dislikes Eckler of sexism. They're both women!

[Antonia Z.]

I am just talking in general. Both women have been repeatedly targeted.

[Antonia Z.]

Here are some examples:

http://www.sankey.ca/y/000848.html
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Den/3001/dofferings/leah.html
http://www.marginalia.org/log/archives/leah_mclaren_sucks.html

[Mike]

And you're a racist for not cheering for the Chicago Bulls.

Breathtakingly pathetic argument.

[God]

As a sexless incorporeal entity, I take exception to your inferral of discrimination on My Holy Part. Must a distaste for narcissism necessarily be linked to the shape of a writer's naughty bits? (The Eleventh Commandment was going to be Thou Shalt Not Brag Of Thy Fabulous Life, But Get Third Parties To Do It For Thou, but I mistakenly believed people of all sexes would get the jist from the New Testament.)

Re: Leah McLaren. An additional factor: in the case of the old "Dissecting Leah McLaren" blog, the critic was someone who couldn't find work in media and resented the fact that Leah would almost certainly not have her Globe column were it not for her mother (which is not to say Leah hasn't earned the right to stay there; I would argue that she has, then smite anyone who disagreed).

Would people go after them if they were men? Speaking only for Myself, yes. More interesting is that so few men are asked to do that kind of personality-based writing. Perhaps a better question would be, have Rebecca and Leah been ghettoized into work that's shallow and beneath them because they're women -- thus setting them up for such criticism?

I wish I had the answer, but Heaven lost a lot of money in the Enron debacle, and I've been downgraded to limited omniscience.

If you don't like any woman writer, you're sexist. If anyone in the media ever loses their job, it's because of a clever plot to destroy the paper/mag. If you don't care for the CBC, you're part of a vast scheme to undermine the country and make us the 51st state. If anything bad ever happens in the US, George Bush set it up to help out his oil buddies. Management of everything is always plotting to fire everybody.

AZ, you're starting to sound like a conspiracy wingnut.

[Scott Tribe]

For what its worth, I'm amused by both of their writings. and I've never understood the reasons for the loathing some people show them.

[Jason]

McLaren actually wrote about how to sort out the rich from the poor? Good gad!

Give your head a shake Antonia.

Or, at the very least, think about what your reaction to such a column would have been if it had appeared in the Sun.

Defending the indefensible is not the same as standing up for a cause.

Of course, it's not often you meet a journalist who will admit they're wrong.

But I could be wrong.

[Antonia Z.]

Anybody who takes the work of these two women very seriously is crazy. It is not meant to be serious. I just find it fascinating that they come in for much more criticism than most middle/old-aged white guys who spout even more garbage for our daily papers.

I mean, look how many comments this posting has. Why is that?

[Randy]

All,

There are many fine Canadian female writers (Amiel, for example: I still remember when she wrote a book on the Peter Demeter case with then-husband George Jonas. I thought she was talented then, and still do). Others who have worked at Maclean's include Amy Cameron (an absolute sweetheart and talened to boot); Katherine Macklem is still there writing on business, and Lianne George, a young, talented writer, produces stories of style and substance.
Most of these posts have nothing to do with gender, but annoyance at Eckler and her "writing," period! Why? Because Eckler writes about nothing of substance or interest to anyone over the age of 13. Sure, there is always the "Don't read it if you don't like it" argument, but why should this crap appear in Canada's national magazine? Isn't Eye magazine hiring anymore?
Ken Whyte, your 15 minutes are up very, very soon.

More trash in Macleans. No surprise there. Kenneth Whyte is running the place, after all.

[Randy]

Re: "More trash in Maclean's." Yes, indeed! Rogers saved at least $300,000 by combining the Editor and Publisher positions; however, how much money have they already lost in Maclean's newsstand sales, advertising, and cancelled subscriptions because they hired Ken "Conrad Black is My Master" Whyte?

Long-time, loyal subscribers -- the ones who have devoted 40 years of their hard-earned money to get Maclean's delivered to their home or office -- started cancelling their subscriptions when RUMOURS of Whyte's hiring started floating around last December/January. This is before Whyte was officially hired! Way to go, Kenny!

Message to Ted Rogers and company: check the decling newsstand and subscription renewal rates for the past six months, and add up all the lost ad revenue. Then give Whyte until December to pack his bags, and hire John Macfarlane away from Toronto Life... which you should have done instead of hiring Tony Two-Names.

[postie]

I mean, look how many comments this posting has. Why is that?

Technically, the majority of this thread has been devoted to people taking exception to you playing the sexist card, not the two writers themselves.

To me, that suggests that this thread doesn't so much indicate the amount of unfair vitriol that's directed at Eckler/McLaren, but rather, it shows how finely tuned the bullshit detectors of most bloggers are.

Just to make sure I stay civil, I didn't just call your work bullshit. I'm just saying you can't incorrectly accuse anyone who dislikes Eckler/McLaren of being sexist without taking a little heat for it.