Women's Magazines

Home

About Me
Facts
Cast List

Diaries
LiveJournal
OpenDiary

Photos

Rants
Feminist Rant
Another Feminist Rant
Religious Rant
Life is Beautiful Rant

Stories

Jenism Dictionary

Links

Email


I know you’re probably sick of me ranting about feminism. So I won’t. I don’t consider this to be a feminist issue, it’s just something that pisses me off.

I read a lot. And I mean a lot. When nothing else is available I can get absorbed in cereal packets. So I have read more than my fair share of women’s magazines. When I moved out of halls last week I found about forty of them under my bed. I don’t know why I keep reading them, because they really, really annoy me. For a start, Sienna Miller is not the greatest style icon who ever lived. She’s not the greatest style icon around at the moment. Sienna Miller has done jack squat besides cling on to Jude Law and strip off for about two brief film roles. If you see a picture of her without a caption saying it’s her, you wouldn’t know who she was. Bloody Sienna Miller in her stupid furry boots. I blame her personally for the influx of irritating see-through gypsy skirts that have invaded the shops lately, making it impossible to get any other kind of skirt (except the always-in-vogue arse-flashing denim mini). 

Secondly, I’m amazed at the number of men I’m expected to fancy. It seems to be a good couple of hundred per issue. Occasionally, they’ll do that lads’-mag centrefold thing – “Fit blokes in the buff!” or whatever. I went to a girls’ school, and we used to find these pictures hysterical. I’ve never met a woman who actually drools over pictures of naked men. Women’s magazines haven’t quite grasped it, anyway – last time I bought one of the centrefold issues, I opened it up to discover a picture of Ainsley Harriott posing behind a pile of fruit. Disturbing does not cover the half of it. Admittedly, this may be my problem, as Brad Pitt, Justin Timberlake and all that lot leave me totally cold and slightly confused, but I’m sure it can’t be just me.

May issue: “Oh. My. God. Look at Coleen McLoughlin. What on earth does she think she looks like? She makes everything look cheap and tacky, no matter how expensive it is.”

June issue: “Get Coleen’s look! Now you can look this stylish for just a fraction of the price!”

Please, make up your damn mind.

Any women’s magazine will be about half fashion and beauty with everything else squeezed in around it. If a celebrity dressed the way they dress their models, the magazine would denounce them as “confused, pathetic fashion victims”. If any normal woman dressed that way, they’d get laughed at, and possibly beaten up (no, you’re not safe from pissed chavs just because you have breasts). I refuse to spend any of my money, let alone the three-hundred-odd quid sometimes quoted, on a nasty flowery dress that even my gran would dismiss as looking like curtains. 

This sort of stuff makes me worry about my gender. Apparently, we’ll forgive a cheater (if he’s got a very nice car) but not a hairy back. But a bloke who admits he wouldn’t forgive a bit of cellulite is a danger to all women (and probably in danger, too, having admitted something like that in a nationwide publication). Sixty per cent of us have had one-night-stands, and seventy-five per cent regret doing it, says Cosmo. So why do these magazines say, “God, that feeling you get when you wake up next to this strange bloke and think ‘Bloody hell, I must’ve had the beer goggles on last night’” and assume firstly that we’ve all been there, and secondly that we all think it’s a joke? Call me old-fashioned, but I’d find getting drunk and having sex with some random bloke I met in a bar incredibly degrading, and to be honest I’d be disgusted with myself. It must just be me and two of my friends lining up on this, though, considering there are so many men in bars who just assume any woman they choose to approach will be gagging to go back to theirs without so much as an exchange of names. Of course, it’s possible there are just a lot of self-deluding idiot males in this town.

I’ve seen articles about drug-rape opposite cocktail recipes and “How to get a free drink”. I’ve seen articles about domestic abuse opposite “How to drive him wild with jealousy.” I’m not saying jealous men have the right to beat women up, but it’s a stupid sort of article to write at the best of times. If he has to be jealous to be interested then it’s clearly not worth it. And in my time I’ve met some incredibly manipulative, borderline evil little bitches who’d love to think they were driving a man mad with anger and jealousy. Some of us are horrible people. Articles about managing your finances/student debt go opposite “The Clothes/Accessories/Hair Products/Whatever You Have To Have This Month! (So What If You Max Out Your Credit Card?”) Most magazines try to create an image of being fun yet responsible, providing help on issues from the most trivial to the life-or-death biggies. What you end up with, in a lot of cases, is a clash between total frivolity and intense paranoia. On the one side, you have pictures of dresses and adolescent drooling over any reasonable-looking bloke (or even Adrian Brody, who scares the crap out of me). On the other, you have “harrowing real-life stories” that warn you about a headache leading to AIDS/meningitis/your brain falling out, and that your husband is going to mysteriously vanish/drop dead for no reason/go on a murderous rampage and kill your family. Which is rather unpleasant, really.

I’ve complained in previous rants that some female journalists writing on feminism seem to regard it as a man-bagging strategy. These magazines put themselves on the forefront of the feminist cause. They kicked up a real stink when Michael Howard made noises about lowering the abortion limit (rightly so, too, shrivelled-up old bugger thinking he’s got jurisdiction over women’s bodies), but generally, they tell us it’s good to be single and independent because of all the men. I’m slightly confused about this idea that if you’re single you get more sex. What kind of slapper nation is this? Apparently, life is all about men. If your boyfriend’s a tosser, give him one more chance, maybe two, then be a strong woman and dump him. So you can find a better man. You don’t get any of that in men’s magazines. I read one for an essay I had to write about gender difference, and it seemed to be quite as screwed up as the women’s. Half the magazine was naked lady pictures, but there was no mention at all of women as girlfriends, and it seemed to imply that having a girlfriend was actually quite an effeminate thing to do. I proceeded to lose a lot of my faith in mankind, until I was assured by several men that that particular magazine was bought by men who couldn’t get a girlfriend under any circumstances (although Nuts remains my number one warning sign. Girls, if he reads Nuts, do not do it. Just don’t. Unless you read Heat, in which case you deserve it).

It’s possible I’m being naïve. Maybe everything I’ve just cited makes up quite an accurate picture of womankind today. If it does, please tell me, so I can run away very fast. We’ve accepted feminism as far as career goes (you must have babies, but not until you’ve forged a successful career and then you have to do both at once), we’ve decided we can dress how we like (but if we’re wearing a short skirt it’s our fault if we’re raped), and we can even drive now (car pages have only arrived in women’s magazines in the past year, and they’re all about insurance deals), but it’s still all about men. And those of us who don’t fit into this have been forced to go stark raving mad in self-defence. But that bit’s fun, at least. The British woman: superficial nymphomaniac paranoid alcoholic slapper in furry boots and sparkly green eyeshadow. Just don’t tell the American comedy writers. They’d never recover.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1