Why are women's magazines such drivel?

I love reading GQ and Esquire b/c in addition to snappy fashion advice, they also publish meaningful articles - for example, this article about the Deepwater Horizon disaster. There was an article about Roger Ebert recently that was moving and interesting and, you know, a consideration of a culturally important person. The most creepily absorbing fiction story I ever read was in an Esquire.

Cosmo and Glamour just publish the same few articles about (straight) sex and clothes and shopping. Wait, I guess they do dedicate a page now to career advice. (Illustrated w/ cartoons. Ugh.) Marie Claire has a token article every month about how much harder women in some other part of the world have it. Vogue and Elle can be counted on for cutting edge updates on... what women with lots of money are doing to their faces to look young forever. Oh, and maybe something about infertility. I do like Bitch and Bust and Curve but find them kind of parochial (and Curve is weirdly affectless and what's the point of putting so many straight women on the cover? I will take 6 covers a year of Margaret Cho, thanks.)

I like clothes. I like frivolity. I like clever and self-confident dating advice. And I like incisive reporting on politics and current events and culture. I'm perfectly happy to get these things from men's magazines if women's magazines won't step it up - but I can't help but feel disappointed every time I see a Cosmo in the supermarket with the same neon shrieking blazed across the cover - most women I know are perfectly capable of thinking 'Oh, I kind of like that purple eyeshadow' AND 'Ugh, what a human tragedy, maybe Congressman Cao needs another phone call from a constituent' WITH THE SAME BRAIN. Come on, women's magazines - cater to the whole woman!

Banning Barbie

Someone telling you not to do something all the time? Then do it. that's the motto here. :)

Follow-Up to Glamour

Well an anonymous commenter (yay...people who aren't my friends are reading) brought to my attention that INSIDE last month's issue of Glamour there really was a wider diversity of body sizes than the cover let on.  I went to the website and this most certainly is the truth.  There were actually TWO different inserts that the cover made me think they were the same.

The size 2, 12, whatever was about this article on the three cover models.

The Curvy, Skinny, It's All good was in reference to this spread, which I will admit DOES show a lot of variety of body types and good tips to buying a conventional bathing suit.  I like that they found a swimsuit that looked good on EVERYONE (although everyone in this photo has a flat tummy pretty much).

So thank you anonymous commenter for the heads up.  Looks like Glamour does have the right idea in terms of content, but are still using old marketing ideas for the cover.

Glamour is all accepting and stuff b/c they'll put a size TWELVER on the cover: It's ALL GOOD

Can you tell which one is size 2, size 12, or whatever?!?!?

I can, but only because I LOVE Chrystal Renn (in the pink) who I know is supposedly the size 12, because she's the world's highest paid plus size model.  This picture was sent to me by my lovely friend Margaret, who very reasonably asked the question "which one is the size 12?" I actually don't think Renn photoshopped here all that much, but just like ME her weight tends to fluctuate and at the moment this picture was taken she may not have been a size 12.  Her rep answers the question here.  Regardless I find it a little annoying that they are claiming to have a wide diversity of body types and bathing suits to fit, when all the women pictured, while obviously having differences, don't really represent variety (of body types, body colors, or taste in bathing suits...where's my one piece?)  Funnily all the women appear to be BOTH curvey and skinny here and would all probably look really good in almost any suit they tried on.

Forever Young Adult

So I just discovered this site and it's way fun to reminisce about what I thought high school was like as a 10 year old.  I LOVE their Sweet Valley High posts.  Check it out!

Infinite Twilight Summer

Well here we are...the beginning of summer.  In my last post I discussed why I didn't want to see Sex and the City 2 based on my critiques of the previous movie. While I still do not plan on seeing it anytime soon (if it comes onto Netflix Watch Instantly...we can talk) I did start thinking about how quick I was to reject something based on past judgments, current reviews, and with no first hand experience.  So with that in mind I have decided to take on a challenge this summer...I am going to read the Twilight series.

Now those of you who know me, know that I criticize, mock, roll my eyes, and probably mention the phrase "Edward is emotionally abusive" almost anytime it is mentioned.  I DID read the first book, but stopped there.  So to be fair, and to really be able to pin down my critique (as well as to give me practice on reading and reporting for this blog using relatively easier material) I am going to read the series and report on  it HERE.  I am going to go in as open minded as possible and try to create reactions that are organic (opposed to going in with fists clenched, ready to draw the first punch).  Not quite sure how I will frame the posts...so you'll have to stay tuned.

To balance this act out I will also be reading Infinite Jest b/c I want to join the Julia and Clare club of being able to read 1000 pages + of the same book.

Wish me luck on this journey

Fangirl rave

I kind of love Tiger Beatdown, and this post is a fine example of why. They're kind of the same idea as Jezebel (commenting on pop culture from a feminist perspective) except approximately 1000% more awesome. (I like Jezebel fine, I just like Tiger Beatdown's longer format and more aggressive, nuanced approach better. Also, they had a guest post recently from The Rejectionist, who I either want to be BFF with or just be, not sure yet.)