Can Magazines Really Handle The Real Woman?

Sometimes I have to laugh out loud when I hear/read what the magazines are telling us; it is a case of NOT practicing what you preach in my eyes. I mean, how can they play around with us like they do?

They probably think that they are something special to tell us ‘real’ women, that our bodies are the new ‘sexy’ – complimented, we might feel somewhat better about ourselves; short-lived though as you excitedly turn the page to discover that the profile of a ‘real’ woman is, in fact, that of Scarlett Johansson or Crystal Renn. Fail.

How can you take a magazine seriously, a magazine that supposedly understands the needs and issues of ‘real’ women when they insistently use the likes of Alessandra Ambrosia on their covers? How can we take advice about how to look good in a bikini and love our curves when the difference in what we understand as ‘curves’ and what they understand is ‘curves’ – well, there simply isn’t any comparison to be had?

One such magazine even has the nerve, to drone on about how the average women have put on 20 pounds in retrospect to 15 years ago – then we see glamorous pictures from Scarlett Johansson and Kate Winslet; please!

I have no doubt in my mind, that the editors of successful fashion and beauty magazines are fully aware that they aren’t showing us real women where they should be; which makes me ask if they can handle real women at all? For the statistic’s sake, the average woman is 5’3” and 164lbs, and our iconic curvy celebs don’t come anywhere near those measurements. ‘Real’ woman favorite Salma Hayek is a tiny 5’2”, but before you credit magazines for using her – she weighs around 115lbs. What’s the deal?

No related posts.

About Leilah

Speak Your Mind


. . ..