Women’s News = Fluff, Fat, and Fashion!

I never bother to read any section of a newspaper directed specifically to women, because it's usually celebrity oriented swill, diet advice, fashion tips, recipes, and etiquette or advice from Ann Landers, Ms Manners, or Dear Abby. Not only do I find this boring & condescending, I also think it's inaccurate to label these topics as "women's" reading. The only person I knew that ever read Dear Abby was my ex-boyfriend. My former roommate was a male that couldn't get enough of celebrity gossip. The fashion and culinary worlds are dominated by male moguls (think Ralph Lauren, Wolfgang Puck, etc.). And to be entirely honest, why is a Women Only section necessary, unless a newspaper or periodical is aware of the fact that their editors don't approach women's issues as worthy of space in the rest of their pages? Recently, my hometown newspaper announced it's new weekly insert, San Joaquin Woman, and (as you may have guessed) I "missed" it's debut issue. For some reason, I can't even find reference to it on the paper's website & I think that says a whole lot about how important it's content must have been. The Wall Street Journal has also announced a female-specific section of it's publication. "Journal Women" has it's own webpage & (Surprise!) it's more of the same crap-o-la I mentioned above. It's headline Health & Wellness article is about suggested alternatives to the gym (as opposed to a piece on heart disease, the 1 killer of American women, or breast/cervical/uterine cancers), followed by a reminder that "mindless munching" isn't healthy (OMG! Really? I never knew that!). It's Style and Dress section has a particularly obnoxious article about showing too much cleavage at work related dinners (ANY female that has ever had boobs is well aware of the ruckus they can cause & we hardly need the Wall Street Journal to reiterate it to us. Fuck y'all, it ain't like we can leave them at home! My opinion about cleavage? The only reason it is cast as derogatory is because straight men are sexually aroused by boobs. It isn't our responsibility to make sure dudes are focused on work instead of our chests, so the WSJ can fuck off with their titty advice.). Journal Women also includes a blog titled "The Juggle", an obvious reference to the "juggling act" that working mothers struggle with. Apparently, the WSJ still buys into the mythology that working fathers aren't strapped with parenting duties that conflict with their work schedules. Working while parenting is difficult for everybody & perpetuating the notion that women have to perform a "juggling act" that men don't only backs up the stupid idea that men aren't (or shouldn't) be involved in child rearing like mothers or that women aren't competent enough to approach both tasks like men do.

People (usually guys) ask me why we need Women's History Month or magazines like Ms and this is exactly why! Because the "real" news or history excludes us. Bullshit inserts & separate sections for women only perpetuate the idea that we are somehow separate from the rest of society and our concerns or achievements aren't important to anyone but ourselves. To that I say: Penis envy, my ass! We suffer from spotlight envy, if anything! 

No comments:

Post a Comment