Jezebel: An Ironically Named Website For Hypocritcal Celebrity-Worshipping Jezebels?
by Ann Thrope
As a woman, I tend to have a hard time finding stimulating reading material. Most woman’s magazines are designed to make women feel like there is something wrong with them, and then sell them a product that can fix it. Its a little known tactic sometimes known in the sales industry as the “poisonous cure.” When I found myself at Jezebel I thought I may have found an oasis among the desirous seas of idiotic sand that I found on other woman’s publications. Sadly, it could not be farther from the case. The three-word subtitle says it all: “Celebrity, Sex, Fashion.” The hipsteresque motif and snarky writing style provided drastically little cover for the same materialistic garbage I could read in Cosmo.
For example, lets look at a recent article that outed some original photographs from a Dolce & Gabbana photo-shoot. The photographs showed Madonna without digital retouching. If Jezebel was really more mature than YM, they wouldn’t have taken this opportunity to say, “WOW *giggle* look at how ugly she is!” But no, they decided to take the childish route of putting down an aging woman for how her body looks. Real high-brow stuff. Sorry, I’m being sarcastic there and I don’t want any Jezebel readers to confuse my little joke with honesty. What would a good magazine have done? They could have said something like “Why is it necessary to retouch these photos of Madonna, isn’t reality good enough?” But no, they took the low road. And they didn’t stop there, even doubling back to lay salt on the wound…
But you might be thinking, “Jezebel isn’t that bad, they don’t condone overt materialism, in fact, they mock it often.”
Its not that bad, its worse. Jezebel does condone overt materialism. By mocking materialism materialistically, like the retouching of Maddona’s glamor shots, Jezebel reinforces the same sort of hateful ideas that separate the “image elite” from these barely nouveau riche upstarts in the first place. The image to the right gives a thumbs up to Justin Timberlake’s veiny arm, while Madonna’s veiny features labeled unfit for their eyes. What is she supposed to do, get younger? This kind of vile hypocrisy is the kind of thing that only a jealous cunt who doesn’t enjoy their own life could dream up. Astounding.I find it hilarious, personally, that someone could be so hypocritical. While bashing Madonna for being subject to retouching, and then also putting her down for how her body looks naturally, they’ve handed Madonna a lose-lose situation. If Jezebel wants to be better than Vogue or Glamor, and cater to an audience that isn’t just another crowd of stump-chewing bambis, maybe they should take this opportunity to belittle someone for something that isn’t based in appearances. No more “Oh look at how X celebrity raises her kids, how dumb!” and “Doesn’t she look bad in that dress?” Its bringing the level of conversation down to the same level that I assume this publication has attempted to escape. The targets have changed, but the attitudes remain the same. Rather than taking steps to make the world better for women, they are bitch-fitting it all into a tailspin.
So what is the end game here for Jezebel readers and writers? If they keep this image obsession up, its going to be a real drag when they realize they won’t be young forever. If they stay on this course, and continue this diatribe of insulting the “faults” of those who are supposed to be “perfect” then every wrinkle they grow will be ugly. Every gray hair will need plucked. And every sagging teat will draw a soggy tear. Oh well, at least they will have access to the same plastic surgery and photo-enhancement that they grate on “smaller” women for utilizing. Maybe Father Time might finally show these girls that they aren’t better than anyone.