Love and authenticity are out of style

Thing and thinginess

Women's magazines are about fashion, diet tips and celebrities. Some people make the mistake of inferring the interests of the average woman from these topics, but that is fatal. And that's not the point either. It is also not about "real" women and those who are only decorations. It's just about originality and art. And about the fact that artificiality is not bad at all. What if we could just wrap up the victim's stamp and stop discussing weight problems? Thanks.

Dear readers - for once, I really mean it in this masculine form - this is now such a woman thing. Paradoxically, this comes in combination with chocolate and cappuccino, i.e. all the good things that prevent you from ever looking like the clothes racks that are depicted in them, if it's not about Brigitte, who don't show clothes racks but wants "real" women, whatever that may be. The thing that is at stake is called “women's magazine” and repeatedly leads to misunderstandings. However, not because it is not real, but because people believe that it has to be real so that no one accidentally confuses it with reality. And if it does, at least it won't do any harm.

There is the thing called women's magazine in the strangest versions: with stars and without stars, with fashion and without fashion and in all combinations in between. The ones with stars and fashion have the worst reputation, those without stars and without fashion the best, because sometimes people believe that this is why they are the "most real". In my opinion, this is the wrong criterion from the start, because magazines are not real, they are at most entertaining. Nobody who is even halfway at consolation gets serious information from a women's magazine, these are probably people who consider Britney Spears to be a serious artist, and not in such a pop-ironic way, but really.

Women's magazines are popcorn for the brain. In the worst of all cases, they are what stupid action rioters (Transformers 2, 2 Fast 2 Furious, etc.) are to men. It is better not to think carefully about why you are doing this to yourself, and it is precisely avoiding thinking that is the relaxing thing about it. You don't want to have to justify that either. Sprinkling is enough, thanks for asking. When I want to think, I read a book. This is probably the reason why halfway intelligently made women's magazines repeatedly fail in the market: Not because women don't want intelligent entertainment. But because then they probably won't reach for a magazine that has a model on the cover. Or a "real" woman who is only shown because of her appearance and not because she runs a microchip factory.

One should therefore not try to approach the phenomenon of women through the magazine market and its products. One should not stop in front of the fashion magazines, leaf through them and fall into the fallacy, except for summer dresses, recipes for Mangold and Heidi Klum, modern women are not interested in much. Oh yes it is. She then reaches for a book or a specialist magazine. Women's magazines exist because women manage to do something senseless, completely consciously, without having to pretend any kind of relevance. For men, every stamp collection must have at least a cultural and historical value.

It's been said many times before, but pretty much every one of those women's magazines make promises of diet miracles, and right now this spring it's piling up again. Amazingly, these are often the magazines with the real women in them, the very aloof fashion magazines know no diet. They only know art exhibitions and photographers and now and then a jewelry designer. You can ask yourself who is propagating which image of women and which of them is the more misogynistic, but I have never actually felt disregarded by the glossy magazines. I tend to feel disregarded by diet tips.

Sometimes I also feel disregarded by the features section when rifts are torn between a dusty, male, academically legitimized old school and the young, female, self-taught, highly talented new generation, as Iris Radisch recently demonstrated. Camps are then formed that do not exist, because where do I belong, as an academically trained, albeit clearly female and younger, but only blogger who, despite youth and femininity, simply has no solidarity for the "talented young woman" Hegemann want to train? And “those who hit them” really defend them “more than their beautiful old man's world, in which only well-behaved and pretty, slim young women are allowed to stand around in the decor”?

There we have it again, the call for the real woman who is not slim or pretty, but something else, in case of doubt: talented. Do you have to talk about weight all the time? Are you not even spared in the features section, where the authors are probably no longer models, but real women? Even a woman can think of to bring the debate to this level, I sighed last week at the lead article. An article that constructs a perpetrator / victim role where one would like to construct hundreds of other perpetrator / victim roles. Instead of the woman as an underdog, that of the blogger as a marginalized media world dweller might offer itself. In any case, I don't think you'll get any further if you stick a note of the sacrifice on Hegemann's forehead and say, oh dear, she's just not pretty enough. In any case, I have never heard a man ever demand that the advertisements should kindly show more real men with bellies, glasses and alimony, and not constantly these alert, dynamic suits with prefabricated villas and trophywives who take the Audi out of the Can afford postage. It's not that pressure is only being put on half of humanity, and you can stop pretending that it is.

So, dear readers, you can see that it is all not so simple. I admire a lot of women for their achievements. I am of the opinion that Virginia Woolf wrote half the literary male avant-garde on the wall, when I think about it, I have more preferred female photographers than photographers and I look forward to tomorrow's new stroke of genius by Joanna Newsom on the music market. However, artistically I measure them all by what they create. And what they can't do. AL Kennedy is not a beauty either, but one of the best writers today. Zadie Smith is a beauty and also one of the best contemporary writers. Both are probably real. None is a sacrifice, none is decor. They are far too smart for that.

So I keep reading glossy magazines with a clear conscience and eating chocolate, and I refuse to feel bad about it because I don't give real magazine women a chance. I want the completely detached silk rustling world that has nothing to do with me, I want to see make-up that I wouldn't thaw myself out on the street with, and for heaven's sake I don't want any diet tips. I don't want to be shown any office fashion by real women, I don't want to be improved, I don't want anyone to give me advice. Authenticity is overestimated, originality is underestimated. And with this aesthetic demand I release you all from my feverish thoughts into the weekend. If it was too confused for you, blame it on my cold. I'm going to read Vogue now.

To press
Send post by email

Authenticity is overrated: women's magazines

From Andrea Diener

Women's magazines are about fashion, diet tips and celebrities. Some people make the mistake of inferring the interests of the average woman from these topics, but that is fatal. And that's not the point either. It is also not about "real" women and those who are only decorations. It's just about originality and art. And about the fact that artificiality is not bad at all. What if we could just wrap up the victim's stamp and stop discussing weight problems? Thanks.

An error has occurred. Please check your entries.

Send post by email

Many Thanks
The post was sent successfully.