Cosmuh-oh. I have four issues of Cosmopolitan in my bedroom. I'm going to
confess that right off the bat.
Three were bought by me, one by my friend
Catherine.
And I've been struck (for the
thousandth time, mind you) by the incredible cognitive dissonance that women's magazines -- and
especially young women's magazines -- create in our lives as females in modern society.
I should note here that Catherine and
I read much more than Cosmo. Each of us has books on the go and I have a bigger stack of New Yorkers lying around than
I do anything else. Neither of us would be described as vapid, nor do I
imagine that most Cosmo readers are; they've just ended up reading
something that too often encourages them in that direction.
I read the magazine
because of the hair and makeup stuff (I'm a die-hard girl -- no
question, no excuses) and perhaps, on a more subconscious level, because of the "carefree
existence" it celebrates.
I don't really have a life where my biggest
crises are romantic ones, or where I get to buy a new wardrobe every
season. So for me, Cosmo is escapism at it's finest. But maybe
that's just the problem. What exactly am I escaping into?
Field and Stream with a tackle box full of lipstick.
I happen to have the current "Fun, Fearless Female" edition, featuring page after page of celebrities who have either kicked a drug or
alchol habit, continued to act past the age of 35 (where they say there
are few good roles), or taken on some kind of charity work.
Or
not.
Some of them just look great in tight pants.
I suppose that
these examples of self-determination are meant to inspire me,
but since I know plenty of women who work past 35, have been in
recovery, and who work for non-profits, I'm kind of stuck
as to how to laud these particular people above the ladies in my life.
Besides -- none
of them are even all that better looking than my friends, anyhow.
They just have more exposure.
The FFF theme is undoubtedly supposed to lend a feminist cast to a party-girl publication,
but the stories never find their way into
the regular world, where women do courageous things every day that
don't involve self-tanner.
The effort to appear
beautiful, prosperous, well-adjusted, and upwardly mobile is at the
true heart of every feature. Discussion of life issues revolve around not appearing
"psycho"; putting your best face forward, whether the end goal is to seduce some man in your Manolos or to succeed at career and social networking.
The problems you might actually have are not dealt with, nor are you encouraged to face them in a meaningful way. You're supposed to find
a way to sublimate them, so that you appear "fun and fearless" as much as possible.
Pop psychology -- as touched upon in advice columns and the
notorious "Cosmo Quiz" -- is the only apparent stab at working through dilemmas and
issues.
Even then, the counsel of "experts" never strays far from "do the
opposite" theory of solution: if you're partying too much, stay home.
If you don't party enough, go out. If you can't meet a man, look
better. If that doesn't work, look even better. If you have a man you
don't want, find another one. If men hurt you, well... don't get hurt.
And if you have raging childhood issues of abuse that don't allow you to
function normally, give you an intense fear of rejection, wake you with
nightmares, and force you into awful patterns that cause you to continually degrade yourself publicly...
Well... you could always try losing some weight.
I know this isn't news.
We've been aware for years that these magazines give
women an unhealthy idea of how they are supposed to live and look. The problem is this: they are trying to
sell that ideal more than ever as a feminist one.
The whole "Fun,
Fearless Female" concept now shows up in all of the beauty/fashion/lifestyle
magazines that I read: Helen Reddy with a mani-pedi! I realize that Helen Gurley
Brown started her vanguard rag to target women at the peak of the
sexual revolution. This was the power she wanted women to
embrace: all the strength and inherent force in their sexual identity.
But -- and I say this as a regular reader -- it has become a crippler,
rather than an empowerer. Cosmo lauds women in government who push for key gender-sensitive legislation. They profile models who have overcome
eating disorders to have "normal" bodies. They encourage self-acceptance.
Then the next page brings a contradiction of everything on the previous one: there is no encouragement to become
politically active, but only to be socially active; the models in the
fashion spreads look thinner than the recovering model at her worst;
and the main thing that all the "life coaching" hints point you towards
is not helping yourself, but making yourself worthy of money or a man.
Is this the feminism being embraced by the next generation? The "if I look
good and act normal someone will believe in me" school of getting
ahead?
They are embracing their sexual power without ever getting to
know the non-sexual parts of who they are and without the fundamental proviso that their sexuality cannot be their only playing card in life.
In the end, women are taught to embrace their bodies and minds only to earn the chance to hand them off to someone else -- and the validation of relationship/ownership by a mate.
Most of the twenty- and thirtysomething women I know are pretty conflicted about
how sexual or nonsexual to be, how image-conscious or not image-conscious to be, and how to find satisfaction within ourselves. But on the other hand, most of
the women I know are incredibly smart, giving, exciting individuals
with, at least the beginnings of good priorities.
The
generation below us is the one I am more worried about: the
Britney-ites who have heard the message of empowerment their whole
lives, and who are now inundated with examples of brazenness, not
emotional courage.
I can see the
contradictions at 31, but did I at 17?
I spent years working with these girls with my former job and I did my best to help them realize that they are
amazing creatures who are capable of great things; great things that have nothing to
do with their appearance.
I'd insist that it was okay to be slightly crazy,
emotional, frustrating and complex. To not look Cosmo-glamourous at all time. To realize that
image -- even the proto-feminist image that you find in the glossies
today -- is only going to get you so far.
At some point, you must develop a soul. So.
I've still got the four issues of Cosmo in my bedroom. I'm still
going to read them. But I am also going to
have to do a little more thinking as to what impact those issues are having on my issues as a real, live, "Fun
Fearless Female." Because I am fun. Sometimes I'm even fearless. But I don't always trust or love myself. And I should probably figure out why.
I'm willing to bet the answer has nothing to do with velcro rollers.
11:56:22 PM
|