you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BEB[S] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Even when I was young, and there was no such thing as 3rd Wave feminism, COSMOPOLITAN magazine (Mommy, what's a magazine?) gave me the heeby-jeebys.

Looking back, it would seem to me that COSMO was Lib Fem before Lib Fem existed, and perhaps was the first sneaky countering of 2nd Wave feminism. By pretending to be feminists while advocating for promiscuity, high heels, etc., COSMO was sabotaging actual feminism.

And COSMO is still at it, but instead of telling women that they can be a CEO in the boardroom and a hooker in the sheets, it's now telling women it's OK to fantasize about cannibalism.

Yeah, because that's what women do in between diapering, attending Zoom meetings, and watching grandma - we fantasize about eating people.

This is all deliberate. The question is when are people going to wake up?

[–]Thatstealthygal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I was both scared by and drawn by Cosmo because the issues I saw were all 70s ones and it was all about having loads of casual sex and getting men to think you were good in bed, OR being alert to men who might be into sex when you weren't (apparently hair along the little finger is a SUREFIRE SIGN for "watch him - he's keen on sex", and wearing very long fingernails and low-cut wrap dresses that showed your very bony clavicle which looked nothing like my body. There wasn't any romance in Cosmo! But it was about SEX which was of course fascinating.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, even at the height of 2nd Wave feminism the media was still attempting to brainwash women that all that matters is our sex appeal.

Although at least you had all the folk singers, punks, athletes, etc., that didn't flaunt their bodies, the way even very talented young female musicians and athletes these days feel they have to.

[–]Thatstealthygal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, I think the earlier 70s were quite unique because women were for the first time taking charge of their sexuality and for a while "acting like men" with hookups and office jobs, plus all the coke. It's interesting to me that the look for woman at that time was at once hyperfeminine - a ton of hair, nails, glossy lips and lashes - and also kind of anti-sexual with the very thin body type that was exhalted.

[–]BEB[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People were naturally much thinner then because of the food and the exercise. Kids rode their bikes or walked. People were outdoors more often.

Look at old footage from the 1970s in the US - it's like a different world. Everyone looks much healthier (beyond some weird styles) and much thinner.

There was the hyper-feminine look, but there was also the natural look. My whole school group went for the natural look, but even the cheerleaders with big hair and way too much mascara often wore flannels and jeans.

I miss that time. The music was much better and people just seemed to have more fun. We hung out and talked on the phone a little, but mostly hung out. Now these kids spend all their time on their phones comparing genders. The internet has, in some ways, been absolutely disastrous.

[–]Thatstealthygal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah, I don't disagree that people were thinner in general. But Cosmo models were extremely skinny and the goal was to be as thin as possible. Living on a lettuce leaf, black coffee and cigarettes was lauded.

It always makes me laugh when magazines and newspapers shriek about heroin chic or the waif look because frankly the models are no thinner than they were in 1975.