![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yay for sales and rambling
Sep. 6th, 2007 10:13 amTo assuage the pain of getting stuck with a $500 bill for replacing my car's compressor in order to have A/C (still cheaper than buying a new car at this point - as long as the engine turns over and it doesn't use oil, knock on wood, I'm keeping it), I bought just a few inexpensive things yesterday at St. Louis, including this t-shirt at the Disney store for only $5. If it had had her in a princess ball dress, I would've sailed right by it, but I like her in the piratey getup. I wish I could find a companion Will shirt in my size (they had, on sale, a tiny girl's tank top with Will on the front of it - I don't even WANT kids, and I'd adopt a daughter just to dress her in this, it was so cute).
Also, in the Department of Huh?, my folks like to get what I call "the scandal sheets," which I used to do for free at the drugstore when I lived down South once a week with my cheeseburger (the point is, I wouldn't pay to read the Star and InStyle and OK!, but oh well) - yes, they're pieces of crap, but it never hurts to know what's going on in your world, even the unimportant shit. Now I realize these things are the worst thing in the world to read - it may seem the other way around on the surface, that downgrading "the beautiful people" will make normal folks feel better about themselves, but the truth is that a lot of people either (a) identify with someone famous and feel bad when they're down, or - and this is me - (b) just plain don't like other people's misery (unless they've done something to me personally, then HELL yes).
If you're like me and just looking for glimpses of Johnny or Orlando or Rebecca looking cute, it's not a problem. But actually stopping and *reading* these so-called articles is a mistake; it's just misery upon misery, catty remarks and grand tales possibly based on a grain of truth that doesn't matter in everyday life. And the stuff they focus on NEVER changes and is so harmful - who can't get pregnant, "bump watches" (*retch*), who's gay, who's on the skids, who looks like shit, etc. What gets me is most of it is directed against women ... when women are these rags' primary purchasers. WTF?
But anyway. I did find a laugh in the latest Star that has the "beach bodies" on the cover - who has the best, the worst, etc. It's basically nothing but photos of stars (mostly women) in their skivvies and remarks about who looks toned and good, and who looks flabby and bloated. What cracked me up is reading the editor's remarks near the front of the magazine - without actually reading any of it, I just glanced at the photo of the woman. Now, I'm fat; I do not look wonderful in a swimsuit (but I go swimming anyway because that's how little I give a shit). But I can only imagine what THIS woman would look like by her head shot. She would FAR outdistance any of these "fatties" in a swimsuit - and here she is, yet, leading the gleeful charge. Again, I have to ask, WTF?
So, I wonder from you reading this: Are these things meant to make you feel better about yourselves, or just worse and, if that's the case, is actually *reading* them (as opposed to just flipping through for photos of people you like in pretty clothes) a form of masochism?
Also, in the Department of Huh?, my folks like to get what I call "the scandal sheets," which I used to do for free at the drugstore when I lived down South once a week with my cheeseburger (the point is, I wouldn't pay to read the Star and InStyle and OK!, but oh well) - yes, they're pieces of crap, but it never hurts to know what's going on in your world, even the unimportant shit. Now I realize these things are the worst thing in the world to read - it may seem the other way around on the surface, that downgrading "the beautiful people" will make normal folks feel better about themselves, but the truth is that a lot of people either (a) identify with someone famous and feel bad when they're down, or - and this is me - (b) just plain don't like other people's misery (unless they've done something to me personally, then HELL yes).
If you're like me and just looking for glimpses of Johnny or Orlando or Rebecca looking cute, it's not a problem. But actually stopping and *reading* these so-called articles is a mistake; it's just misery upon misery, catty remarks and grand tales possibly based on a grain of truth that doesn't matter in everyday life. And the stuff they focus on NEVER changes and is so harmful - who can't get pregnant, "bump watches" (*retch*), who's gay, who's on the skids, who looks like shit, etc. What gets me is most of it is directed against women ... when women are these rags' primary purchasers. WTF?
But anyway. I did find a laugh in the latest Star that has the "beach bodies" on the cover - who has the best, the worst, etc. It's basically nothing but photos of stars (mostly women) in their skivvies and remarks about who looks toned and good, and who looks flabby and bloated. What cracked me up is reading the editor's remarks near the front of the magazine - without actually reading any of it, I just glanced at the photo of the woman. Now, I'm fat; I do not look wonderful in a swimsuit (but I go swimming anyway because that's how little I give a shit). But I can only imagine what THIS woman would look like by her head shot. She would FAR outdistance any of these "fatties" in a swimsuit - and here she is, yet, leading the gleeful charge. Again, I have to ask, WTF?
So, I wonder from you reading this: Are these things meant to make you feel better about yourselves, or just worse and, if that's the case, is actually *reading* them (as opposed to just flipping through for photos of people you like in pretty clothes) a form of masochism?
