Feminism: epic fail

“First problem: there’s still a magazine called Good Housekeeping,” says Margot Magowan as she frets over the photo-shopped cover of the First Lady. 

Magazines and newspapers are dying left and right, the whole publishing industry is imploding, yet Good Housekeeping lives on? It survives not only to give women crucial tips on vacuuming, ironing, or what Febreeze actually is, but to produce a commemorative “125th Anniversary Collector’s Issue” graced with the creepiest cover photo of Michelle Obama I’ve ever seen.
First, I need “crucial” tips on how to manage my home better because, quite frankly, I wasn’t taught how to clean on a schedule or maintain a home (God Bless Flylady!).  I like a clean house, therefore I clean it.  What would Magowan rather me do, hire someone? 
I loathe women who look down upon those of us who choose–and are happy to be in the position to choose–to stay home to raise my child and, yes, cook for my family.  I love what I do.  And it’s hard work, much harder than I ever realized it would be.  But it’s the most satisfying and rewarding JOB I have ever had.  Get that Magowan, it IS a JOB.   Why would I return to the classroom to teach the children of others when I have my own to teach?  Wasn’t feminism supposed to provide me a choice?  Oh, forgot, I didn’t choose to abort my child or toss her in a daycare for others to rear to pursue my own “fulfillment” at the expense of my family.  Whoops. 
Back to the offensive magazine cover.   What does she find so creepy about the photo? 
Magowan proclaims it’s because Michelle looks like a

waxy, Stepford wife, lips and teeth bossed and glossed, hands clasped primly just under the appropriately wifey headline: “Keeping her marriage close, raising her girls and overcoming her biggest fear.”

Ah, there’s the rub: marriage and motherhood.  God knows we can’t have any of that along with “housekeeping tips.”

The cover photo of Michelle is striking but for an entirely different reason:  she’s smiling and it looks (!) genuine.

Cassy Fiano notes the same thing: 

First of all, I don’t really see the big deal about the photo of Michelle Obama (but then again, I also don’t think Michelle is a “stunning woman in every way). Yeah, it’s obviously been photo-shopped, but every other magazine on the planet does it too. I thought the reason she looked so unrecognizable was because she was smiling. Seriously, how often do you see Michelle Obama beaming so broadly? It completely transforms her face.


The offending cover.




2 Responses

  1. First, You are so right on! And I am a SAHM and its the most difficult job I have and is unpaid but I love it. And my husband appreciates me and I appreciate me. Gee, this is so not working out!

    Second, did you check out the Woodhull Institute that the author founded? I think their purpose is actually kinda funny:
    “The Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nonsectarian educational organization that provides ethical leadership training and professional development for women. Too often, success has been measured in terms of the accumulation of power and wealth, with almost no consideration of how these accomplishments have been achieved. Ethical leadership is concerned with the means as well as the ends to personal and professional achievements. As such, Woodhull has developed a community that encourages women to lead with honesty, respect, courage and compassion; to strive for the common ground in decision-making; and to share in community service.”

    Good luck with running a business without being concerned about the accumulation of wealth! That’s right, women need to learn more about leading with compassion, honesty, and respect. Forget the bottom line. NOT that those aren’t important qualities in every person, but come on. You need a special institute to teach them? How about if your mom had stayed home to raise you? You probably would have learned those qualities with no problem. Oh right… she was a feminist.

    • Thanks, Lisa, for your comment. I did look up the Woodhull Institute and had planned on commenting further but pjToddler had other plans! So thank you for leaving the comment–it’s spot on. I was amused by the pretense of its “nonpartisan” status when nothing about it’s existence supports any point of view other than “social justice.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: