I am as guilty as anyone when it comes to devouring the vacuous waste that is a gossip magazine, but picking up the Women’s Weekly in my mum’s house the other day, (apparently a more meaty mag compared to is skin and bone sisters) I got a little more than I bargained for when my brain switched ON instead of OFF.
What’s more is that this strange compulsion to use my brain while reading a gossip mag, came about from simply reading the first page (and by first I mean the one after the ten glossy full page ads) the one where the editor writes us a letter.
You know, the friendly little opener that brings a personal touch? The one that is autographed by the actual editor themselves?!
And so while I read as Helen McCabe opened this month’s mag with the kind of silver tongue the envy of every wedding MC, I found that her neat little wrap up of the motivations behind the magazine’s content was sending my mind firing off in all sorts of different directions like a bunch of fireworks whizzing around on cracker night.
I’m just not so sure that the thought processes I had were exactly what the editor had in mind when she wrote;
“Its not our role to back a leader, but it is our job to ask questions and to bring stories about the people who shape this nation”
(for the non-Aussies, we are in the middle of a Federal Election and the front cover of the mag featured Julia Gillard, our first, but unelected by the public, female Prime Minister. The upcoming election is said to her chance to face the ‘people’s vote’ and she if she cant land the job the old fashioned way)
Being the first female PM is a big deal, the politics of the election, may, debatably, be an even bigger deal, but the Women’s Weekly was right to say that above and beyond this what we really need to know is about the ‘people who shape a nation’.
Which is exactly why the Women’s Weekly’s profile on Gillard would look into her “failed relationships” and “missing out on motherhood” – what the editor describes as the ‘tough’ questions their journalist put to our first female Prime Minister.
I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t feel comfortable about people shaping our nation unless I know who has shaped their naked body, and how, and if it has lead to a reproduction of our species. But what does make me comfortable doesn’t seem to count for much because for 11years this slime ball excuse for a human being was our leader, and no one seemed to give a shit that the mere sight of him made me squirm:
But the editor’s letter just kept getting better, because she then went onto say to her readers that despite the kind of high-minded journalism that examined “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in a baby’s carriage”, she knew that, “a lot of the commentary on this story will focus on the photographs, which were shot on a wintery Sunday afternoon…”
The shallow superficiality of which could only be topped by how this segued into what was a ‘carefully crafted to look like a casual afterthought’ spiel acknowledging the woeful practice of digitally altered images in women’s magazines that readers were understandably ‘concerned’ about, by saying that yes, it does happen, but from now on they are going to get on a boat that set sail years ago lead by far more progressively minded publications, by labelling when and where photos have been altered, in the interests of ‘transparency’.
In the words of the editor this would be “a small step, but in a world where women are under ridiculous pressure to look younger, your (the readers) concerns are well founded”
This was great news, because, for me, there is nothing better than acknowledging the great height, depths and ‘ridiculous’ extent of issues faced by women, than not really taking too large a leap about it, because, at the end of the day “we use these techniques (digitally altering images) because we want to bring you the best magazine possible”…
Something unlikely to be achieved with people having uneven skin tones and looking far too flawed and realistic to transport people into the fantasy world of unattainable perfection – not to mention for facilitating a carefully crafted balance between a level of self loathing with the everlasting hope of personal transformation that fuels the entire market for more and more of these kind of mags).
I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s a traditional women’s mag. It is what it is, and you can take it or leave it. But given that it didn’t seem like a mindless cake and celebrities issue, it was hard to ignore some of the unsettling claims the editor was making.
In the first instance it was the blatant reminder of the negative kind of attitudes towards women that publications like this perpetuate, and how that extends all the way up to how female politicians are examined – on accordance of her ‘bust ups’ and ‘barren womb’ as opposed to say, her policies, or the values that may shape them.
The actual article on Julie Gillard (I did get past the first page eventually) was built around the premise that “a series of life choices had rendered her unrecognisable to a large majority of Australians…(and so) we wanted to know a little more about her”.
The life choices being referred to that made this woman so alien? Being in a defacto relationship and not having a child.
When lured by the journalist into a discussion about these choices Gillard noted that there no doubt would be difficulties involved with balancing motherhood and running a nation, which the article then concluded to mean that “it is interesting that she talks about children as a kind of liability”.
Before going onto say that “it could even be argued that Tim (her partner) – for whom she no doubt cares deeply – is nice to have a round, but he’s not strictly necessary”
The article doesn’t actually explain how this could be argued, and actually does nothing at all to argue such a case, it simply cast the weightless assertion out there and plants it in people mind that Julia Gillard sees the people she loves as ‘not necessary’, and children as ‘liabilities’.
And while I would hardly call myself an advocate of Julia Gillard or her party, I can’t stand that she is the subject to such superficial and conservative analysis.
And what’s more, that this is then genuinely passed off as the kind of ‘tough journalism’ that will lead ordinary Australians to have a deeper understanding of the woman.
But on that point, they are tragically right, because as the very next part of the editor’s letter revealed, more than break ups and more than barrenness, what is really going to be on the mind of the Women’s Weekly’s 2 million plus readership is the photographs taken on a “wintery afternoon” …deep understanding indeed.
And then, in a final and further mind blow, the quagmire of a debate over how women are represented in these mags and the pressures on body image is paid light lip service to, when the editor says, yes, we care, but ‘we tweak images so people look good, so our mag can look good, because at the end of the day, that’s what matters…’
It is like BP saying they have an environment department, because ‘they care’. We know they are the very perpetuators of the problem, so they nod their head slightly in acknowledgement, slap together a department, put a whole lot of spin on it, then think that this is going to appease people that “understandably express concern”.
Do they think we are that stupid. Are we that stupid….?!
I only really read those sorts of magazines in doctor’s surgeries, so can’t really comment on their aesthetics and politics. But i must say i won’t be voting for Julia. (Not that i want Tony Abbott to get in.) At first i thought it was refreshing to have a leader that was an atheist (separation of church and state) and “deliberately barren” (not pandering to the “family” vote) (i know you have a child, but, as this article shows, you can think outside of that box with thoughtful insight…), but increasingly i have become disillusioned with her. When she said No Gay Marriage that sealed it for me. (Don’t get me started on “Aunty Tom” Penny Wong…) It seems only the Greens and maybe the Australian Sex Party (i think – haven’t actually checked their policies – must explore) support our rights. Laughably, she then said she wanted more committment to mental health issues and teen suicide. Ever occur to her that alot of suicidal teens have issues with their sexuality, a direct result of non-heteros being seen as second-class citizens in mainstream society… I still think the environment is the most important issue (affects everyone), so to me, a vote for the Greens is a no-brainer. But, interestingly, this whole election campaign has made me realise how radical my views are compared to the rest of society. I am trying not to become too disheartened…
Have you seen that movie “Election”? I think you would dig it…
A thought-provoking post Ruby Two Shoes…
And i forgot Conroy’s censorship proposal with the Internet Filter! Grrrr…
This is a great comment JJ.
I certainly won’t be voting for Julia either. After many years of not voting because I that was the best way i could stick my finger up to the ultimately undemocratic system, I outgrew the sentiment and of curse voted Green.
There was an interesting article in the wend paper about that also – that the Greens were ‘red’ on the inside, there was such an alarmist tone to it that I couldn’t comprehend, like it was some kind of shock, but what the hell is wrong with being ‘red’?! Apart from Stalin, that is…As far as i am concerned you cant be green without being red anyway, you need progressive ideals to truly embrace environmentalism – in my opinion….
But you made an excellent point about Julia (Labour) and how they dont support Gay rights but then cant even make those connections to mental health issues….
Its funny, in a way our ideas are not that radical at all – it is essentially just thoughtfulness and humanity – but it cant be jarring to realise that they stand in stark contrast to how so many people think. It shouldn’t have to be that way. But for me, radical and proud.
Are ‘we’ that stupid is a great question. It would seem that ‘they’ certainly think we are that stupid–or just plain stupid. I avoid such magazines because of the mentality they spread and support.
In America here’s a touch of the insanity–listened to two self proclaimed liberal feminists converse about Her Majasty Clinton–and other women politicians–all the while claiming that IF WOMEN were in power then the world would be a better place and we wouldn’t have so much war. As Gender was the deciding factor in w/n war is conducted. I think NOT. Conssider Thatcher and condi Rice for starters. As for Ms Clinton–that’s just a good old boy mentality in a woman’s body–ain’t no difference in the thinking because she’s a female.
It’s THINKING that matters–values, ethics, etc–no matter what the gender. Old school concept of “war makes the world go round” is the problem and plenty of women espouse it just as rabidly as the male of our species.
—-Okay–I think I just ranted. Huh, who knew your mag observations would set me off.–oh well. Hi.
but it was a great rant whitebuffalo! i enjoyed it, and you made some killer points. how anyone could reduce war to being a matter of what gender is in power is beyond me, and just asking me to consider Thatcher was enough to send shudders down my spine…
It is too true that it is values etc that matter – but dont get me started, I have had many a rant along those lines! But after years of activism, radical politics and working for change, I mostly conclude that this is where it is at – a revolution is needed in core values, or at least just a way of getting in touch with the ones that are likely to be already there but have had something much more commercial and superficial imposed on them….
Yes–VALUES–what do we really really ‘value’?
Btw, I agree with Jone that the Environment is THE ISSUE.
Is the “real Julia” a childless unmarraried woman? Yes, as these are a matter of record.
She only has 17 days left in which to get married, adopt several children, and have gender change surgery.
She might as well bcome Catholic, and apply to the Pope for living sainthood for these immediate miracles.
Unfortunately, that would become a miraculous same-sex marriage with unrelated progeny. Like “Modern Family” meets “Inception”.
I really think that I have seen that movie too many times…
OZ
Ahh – but it is a movie that is crying out for repeated viewing!! (how are we ever going to watch a movie that compares?!)
I dont know if adopting children is going to cut it anyway – too many Aussies still wont be able to relate to not giving your genes a chance of being immortal ….I think she might need miraculous and immediate conception, like now.
Great post, RTS.
I’ve often wondered if maybe we* are that stupid.
*present company excluded, of course.
While I admit I don’t know much about Politics (being a landlocked Canadian helps), I remember watching the Presidential Election and wondering why this one show meant to “Empower Women” spent the whole time speculating on whether or not Sarah Palin would keep the clothes she got for her campaign.
I understand the whole “on the taxpayer’s dime” issue, but I felt like I was watching an episode of Project Runway.
So I finally changed the channel to Project Runway.
Er, while I did have a point, I forgot what it was.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I admire you for your ability to speak your mind and say what others are thinking. (Or SHOULD be thinking, anyway.)
Thanks Bschooled
I see that once again that we often wonder the same things, and, for the most part, this leads us to turning our attention to where it is needed most: reality TV. I’m not sure why i deviated from this usual route and instead went ranting, but I’m glad you appreciated it anyway.
I can understand your lack of interests in politics, apart from the fact that it is often depressing, you must be awfully busy with being the Mother of (budget busting) Reinvention!
The extent of even the ‘journalistic’ hypocrisy is mind shattering. I’d love to know why they feel that the reader needs to know what decisions caused a woman to miss out on the most important role a woman could possibly fill; shooting out the babies. Meanwhile in the corporate world, at least in the states, if a woman lets on that she may possibly one day be interested in a family she isn’t going anywhere in the company, MBA from Harvard or no MBA from Harvard.
And if the magazine retouches their photos to bring you a ‘better magazine’ why shouldn’t a 15 year old girl get a nose job and liposuction and throw up after every meal in the interests of bringing you a better daughter?
Great comment Scott!
So great in fact that nothing I say can add to its shine. Great to hear your mini rant, thank you
haha—that all depends on the company and the nature of the woman’s position though…If she’s a sales rep for a pharmaceutical company—and she’s bringing in a shit-load of money when she’s not knocked up—paid maternity leaves will flow like ice cold Boku…but If she’s running the register at the Mobil On the Run and tells the boss she’s got triplets in the lunch-box—she’s gonzo…
Cheers.
Nice post Ruby!
Photographs may lie, but sales figures don’t. I’m afraid we are indeed as stupid as they think we are.
Thanks for confirming what I long suspected….
I have never bought a copy of Women’s Weekly (and isn’t it a monthly magazine now?) but your post has just ensured I’ll never even pick one up in a dentist’s waiting room from now on. Grrr…… that editor’s letter makes me so angry.
I’ve only been on the electoral roll for the past four years – I signed up so I could help oust Little Johnny. this year I’ll probably vote Greens – Julia just doesn’t have what it takes
Same! I was off the roll for a long time, but signed up when I realised I could vote in Johnny’s electorate, it was a proud day when he had historically lost his own seat! (thanks, in only a very small part, to me!)
I’m glad to know I am not the only one angered by that letter, thanks Nurse Myra
As a former USA citizen whose last US vote was in Texas in the early 1980’s, when the ‘good ole boy’ Governor was rolled out of office by a candidate who was under indictment for corruption, and we had to go door-to-door just to get people to vote –
I have to support mandatory enrolment and voting.
It is one of the best things to combat electoral fraud, corruption, and illusions of disenfranchisement.
“It is like BP saying they have an environment department, because ‘they care’.”
I’d love to work in BP’s environment department. We’d be on hiatus for the bulk of the year.
wow fabulous post Ruby, and Scott – bravo on the rant within a rant! Usually I come away from your blog with a smile on my face, but you have shown very clearly that this is not a laughing matter. Thank you for saying what needed to be said.
Sounds like you feel passionately about politics.
That’s a good thing in my view.
I’m not one for magazines personally
It’s the same old story – there’s only two people who you can feasibly vote for if you want your vote to actually count for anything, and they’re running almost identical campaigns. It’s an easy one for me out of Tony and Julia though – as disappointed as I am with her stance on refugees, at least she’s a sympathtic human being. Who could vote for Tony Abbott – a brawling, misogynist who has the nerve to say he’s unfairly disadvantaged in this election because he can’t use his usual tactics (ie. yelling at and bullying his opponent) because she’s a woman and that would make him look bad. Yeah, Tony, you males are just so hard done by…
And, of course, I can’t fault Julia’s personal grooming…
Did you see Julia on Q&A last night? – would love to hear your opinion. btw where DID you get that horrible picture of little Johnny?