Some women view Cosmopolitan magazine as a symbol of women's liberation, but is it really accurate to say that it supports feminism or equality for women? I don't personally see the appeal, even though I know a lot of people thinks it promotes a form of "independence".
Writers at Cosmo may think they are helping girls or young women to become upwardly mobile through their self-help and self-improvement articles, but what is the basic implication of this attitude? Laurie Ouellette in her article "Inventing the Cosmo Girl" states that from the beginning of the magazine "Expenditures on clothing, cosmetics, and accessories were presented as necessary investments in the construction of a desirable (and thus saleable) self (p 120)."
They still are promoting this consumerist mindset, as if you are only your absolute best when you buy certain things to create their constructed ideal. It may seem liberating to have a magazine dedicated to helping you become a rich and fashionable individual, but why is that a goal for so many people? Ouellette also called Cosmo "a framework that legitimated capitalism, consumerism, and patriarchal privelege (125)."
Even their supposedly empowering articles I find ridiculous, Like this recent article on "10 Things Women Do Better than Men" (which they call an ego boost):
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/tips/women-better-than-men-things
Most of these things are incredibly trivial like "we evolve hotter than men", or "We're better at seeking comfort". Is that actually empowering someone, or treating them like insecure children that will find satisfaction in knowing they'll age more beautifully?
I personally see Cosmo's focus on sexuality, fashion, and consumerism as damaging to women, but is there anybody (I mean, anyone reading this blog) that disagrees? Why does the magazine appeal to so many readers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment