It's not often that I find myself in agreement with Republicans, but I'm fully prepared to set aside my biases when someone's just, you know, right. Republican-American Magazine is saying that Maxim Magazine is cheap, dirty and misogynistic for comparing Sarah Jessica Parker to a horse, and I gotta admit: they've got a point.
In response to Maxim's recent 'Unsexiest Women' feature, a writer at the Republican rag had this to say about that magazine's brutal skewering of SJP and a handful of other female celebrities, most of them moms:
"To see the
exquisiteness of Sarah Jessica Parker and the beauty of her
nontraditional face? Well, that takes a degree of nuance and maturity
that these guys obviously lack. In its place, they exhibit an abundance
of misogyny, a quality that remains all too pervasive in the misguided
name of wit.
It's
one thing to say some celebrity committed a fashion faux-pas, or had
their hairstyle askew — I've had my share of bad hair days, and
off-kilter outfits. And as a journalist, I recognize the importance of
brutal reality. If someone is pudgy, and it's pertinent, well, it's
going in print.
But creating a magazine feature for the sole purpose of tearing women apart? Forget funny, that's just plain mean.
Part
of me wants to propose making the editor who let this idea come to
fruition pose in his skivvies for the next magazine cover. Let women
pick his appearance apart, one freckle and errant fat cell at a time.
But I don't want to sink to their level."
That last bit is where she loses me. I'd luuuurve to see a Republican magazine sink to that level. They could do features on the general skeevishnesh of the Maxim editors, and that guy who runs American Apparel, and - oooh, this would be good - Perez Hilton for scrawling 'Bad Mom' and 'Fatty' all over pictures of Britney Spears. I'd pay cash money for that. And maybe even say more nice things about Republicans.
I'm still not going to forgive them for Ann Coulter, though.
