It's that time of the month again; when I finally get around to reading the Cosmo magazine I bought three weeks ago. And yes, you're right. I am procrastinating from English revision. I usually don't really have an issue with any of the articles Cosmo prints - although there are always flaws depending on your opinion. How ever one page in this months issue really ticked me of, and it is called "Expert Toning Tips For...", sub-headed 'We've got the best exercises for your body shape." This then followed by a series of photos of slightly 'deformed' Barbies and notes on their body type, and how to change it.
There's a rather large myriad of issues here. For one, the use of Barbies, a brand known for showing an even more unachievable female body image than Disney. Then there's the fact that they've been photoshopped to appear wrong, when they actually appear to just look like normal women (or as normal as a photoshopped Barbie can get). This seems to present the idea that none of these body types; apple, boyish, busty, pear or hourglass are acceptable and need to be changed. Fast, before any men look at you. It's almost like we need to have the body of a plastic doll to be allowed. The only one which seems to get away with existing is the hourglass, but even then the article suggests that you need to put more work in to stay "firm". I've still never worked out why 'firm' is desirable. It sounds like if you gave them a hug, they'd be hard as a board. (Get your mind out of the gutter, there's only room for one and I got here first.)
Oh Cosmo. You've been doing so well recently. Maybe not so much in this issue. I didn't take to the list of examples why females bosses are all bitches too well either, however excited you are for the Revenge Wears Prada film.
I was wondering weather or not I should enter Cosmo's blog competition. Maybe not, after this. I don't think I'd win.