Spring Break
Cosmo, ridiculous columns empower no one
Gail Cole
Issue date: 4/29/09 Section: Forum
I bought my first Cosmopolitan magazine at age 16. It really wasn't that much different from my earlier teen magazines - stories on clothes, hair, makeup, "boy" advice - plus sections of sex positions, masturbation, picking up men and scandalous stories from readers. Since then, I was an occasional reader, seeing no problem in this oh-so-scandalous publication.
But sometime in my first year at OSU, I began thinking of how ridiculous Cosmo really is.
Maybe it was a combination of professors screeching at me to open my mind and think and a particularly dumb article or photo that caused me to wake up one day and think, maybe I've been wasting my time and money and thoughts on this pretty, colorful, shiny magazine?
I've been Cosmo-less ever since, somehow making it through twenty-something-ness thus far.
Still, Cosmo has a death grip on culture for young women. The magazine was first published in 1886 but was revamped upon the ascension of Helen Gurley Brown to the position of editor-in-chief in 1965; since then, it has been a staple in the lives of young, straight women.
With this in mind, I recently wondered if I was missing something. Cosmo is just a magazine, so maybe it's not so bad? Not wanting to waste my Togo's money on an actual magazine, I instead went to Cosmopolitan.com to browse through a few articles.
Immediately, I found the best - and by best, I mean the most gag-reflex-inducing - article that represents the essence of Cosmo, titled "5 Traits that Bag a Boyfriend."
It's tagline immediately caught my single eye: "If you've been in a relationship dry spell, it may not be due to a lack of good men, but rather because you're not living up to your girlfriend potential."
According to this story, in order to be attractive to a guy, a girl needs to be over her ex. She also needs to dress for "guys, not girls," meaning she should appear curvy rather than cute. She must know how to "compromise" as to not appear harsh to potential suitors. In addition, she must have hobbies, as to not cross the line from devoted to clingy.
But sometime in my first year at OSU, I began thinking of how ridiculous Cosmo really is.
Maybe it was a combination of professors screeching at me to open my mind and think and a particularly dumb article or photo that caused me to wake up one day and think, maybe I've been wasting my time and money and thoughts on this pretty, colorful, shiny magazine?
I've been Cosmo-less ever since, somehow making it through twenty-something-ness thus far.
Still, Cosmo has a death grip on culture for young women. The magazine was first published in 1886 but was revamped upon the ascension of Helen Gurley Brown to the position of editor-in-chief in 1965; since then, it has been a staple in the lives of young, straight women.
With this in mind, I recently wondered if I was missing something. Cosmo is just a magazine, so maybe it's not so bad? Not wanting to waste my Togo's money on an actual magazine, I instead went to Cosmopolitan.com to browse through a few articles.
Immediately, I found the best - and by best, I mean the most gag-reflex-inducing - article that represents the essence of Cosmo, titled "5 Traits that Bag a Boyfriend."
It's tagline immediately caught my single eye: "If you've been in a relationship dry spell, it may not be due to a lack of good men, but rather because you're not living up to your girlfriend potential."
According to this story, in order to be attractive to a guy, a girl needs to be over her ex. She also needs to dress for "guys, not girls," meaning she should appear curvy rather than cute. She must know how to "compromise" as to not appear harsh to potential suitors. In addition, she must have hobbies, as to not cross the line from devoted to clingy.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.