January 5th, 2006
As I and my fellow misogynists lament over the current state of female behavioral patterns, the smidgen of human compassion left in me prompts me to try and isolate some potential causes.
Today one rather significant factor emerged: Women’s magazines. Humbly, I submit to you that we’re far better off without them.
Fashion — In all the years I’ve thumbed through them, I have yet to see a wearable ensemble portrayed in pictures. If I’m fortunate, maybe two items will appeal to me, and chances are those came from ads, not spreads. They put those scenes together as artistic expressions, not to help any of us get dressed in the morning! Furthermore, it’s not like we have a hard time outstripping our wardrobe budgets… Given the opportunity, we can find more than enough cool stuff without the aid of a magazine, right?
Relationships — Another bloated topic that they seem to hash to death in these magazines. Are we to believe that there’s some kind of cookie-cutter solution out there that will turn challenging interpersonal matters into a little slice of heaven? Girls couldn’t possibly be that naive. But let’s face it, out of needy desperation they’ll try anything… That is, anything other than looking within themselves to find a true and honest solution. No, they’d rather take all the contradictory and manipulative advice various magazines can dole out, and come off looking like total psychopaths… Brilliant!
Sex — Now, this one really gets me. There’s a generation of girls who grew up reading “the bible” (as the ladies of SATC refer to Cosmopolitan) and I propose that it didn’t do men any favors. I’ll bet money that all it did was release a glut of crappy lovers onto the market. Creativity, where have you gone? Not to be crude, but I’ve been married for a billion years, and I have yet to run out of new material. All it requires is half a brain… Which you won’t have at your disposal if you’re firing every synapse trying to remember which way Cosmo said you should swirl your tongue! Thank you.
Entry Filed under: Carrie's Rants
10 Comments Add your own
1.
Pie | January 5th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Hear hear!
Although I have to admit that Rob makes me buy Cosmo once in awhile so he can read the sex articles, not to mention there are tons of half-naked chicks in there.
If he’d just get a subscription to Playboy I wouldn’t have these problems.
I’ve found that they have about 10 or 15 basic articles that they reword, add new photos and publish in every issue.
2.
Lisa | January 6th, 2006 at 12:23 am
I don’t read those any more either because they made me feel like I was failing at womanhood or something.
Thanks for the compliment on the pic too. I changed the colors because I was trying to hide my breakout. But we’ll just pretend like I was being artsy.
3.
Nicky | January 6th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Last time I read a women’s magazine, it belonged to someone else and I was very bored. Last time I bought one? Even longer!
I agree with Pie, they print the same thing over and over, just slightly reworded. And there is only so many times you can read an article about someone else “making changes” to their sex life.
Now, I just geek out when I buy magazines (if ever) and get New Scientist. At least they are worth keeping, because I can reference them for my assignments!
4.
Entrophia | January 6th, 2006 at 6:27 am
I like Vogue and Vanity Fair for the arty clothing pictures, but I’ve found that none of the Women’s magazines are written with half a brain. ‘Steamy Sex Secrets’ seem to be such things as ‘You know, it’s okay to touch your partner instead of lying there like Barbie in a box?’
Also, magazines seem to be getting dumber by the decade. I read some Seventeens from 1986 (the year I was born) and they had knitting patterns and cooking ideas more complicated then ‘eat carrot sticks with peanut butter’. The articles were also written for someone more lucid and sometimes managed wit. Then I compared them to the modern glossy ad books where the only claim they made to you having a brain was a list of consumer goods to ask Mom to buy you for your dorm room and the advice to sign up for your SATs on time and bring a pencil.
5.
Jaq | January 6th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Couldn’t agree more!
PS: You should submitt this to the next carnival of feminists…
It’s on women and pop-culture.
6.
Deb | January 6th, 2006 at 9:51 am
II couldn’t agree with you more! I quit reading those magazines a long time ago. What a waste of brain cells and money. Now, I subscribe to Good Housekeeping - yow, that sounds horrible, but at least the articles are useful and any “fashions” they show are at least within my budget. And yeah, the best way to “learn” about sex is to do it!
7.
Salena | January 6th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Amen sister!
8.
Diana | January 6th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
This post came at the perfect time. I am contemplating subscribing to Glamour, to help update my wardrobe, but I haven’t done it yet because I hate the idea of it pulling my values towards shoes and handbags, not to mention the whole “failing as a woman” thing that Lisa brought up.
9.
Panthergirl | January 7th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Well, I agree with most of what you say here except that Cosmo DID teach me how to give myself an orgasm (at 16). Thank you, Cosmo! (It also taught me that if men are honking their car horns at you, you’ve probably gone a bit too far in the sexy-dressing department. Of course, that was immediately following a fashion spread with women wearing nothing but two band-aids and a cork.)
10.
R U Serious | January 7th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
The number one sex tip in Cosmo reveals how they really feel about men. Ladies, seriously, we do not want you to surprise us by jamming your finger in our ass.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed