Sexism in "Cosmopolitan" Magazine

I am an avid reader of Cosmopolitan magazine, and I thoroughly enjoy the many beauty, relationship, and fashion tips, as well as the entertainment that it provides. Before the April 2009 issue, I was not strongly opposed to any subject or article presented within the magazine. Despite the many articles about men and relationships with them, I found most of the articles to be based on the needs and wants for a woman, rather than solely focused on the pleasure of a man. That being said, the article entitled “A Dating Coach Gives His No-BS Tips” by Steven Ward promotes the pleasure of a man at the expense of a woman’s true self.

As a student who has earned a degree that includes studying a wide range of feminist literature and theory, I am very aware of the struggle of women in the past (and today) to be appreciated for the complex beings that we are. Feminine power and discourse has come a very long way in gaining respect in society, but articles like this one reinforce the oppressing binary of the dominant, powerful male and the inferior, submissive female. The following quotation from Ward’s article is what I determine to be the ultimate example that promotes submissiveness in women:

A man, you see, would like to think he wears the pants – whether he does or not – so help him feel confident. On the first couple of dates, agree to agree. Be available. Be up for going anywhere. His responsibility is to make the date as fun, cool, and entertaining as possible. Your responsibility is to make it easy for him to do that. (158)

There are a number of issues that I have with this “advice”. First of all, I understand where Ward is coming from in regards to making the man feel as though he “wears the pants” – a man needs to feel confident and secure as much as women do. However, allowing a man to assume that he has the control, while the woman thinks differently, creates a disconnection between the man and the woman. The relationship is already beginning on the basis of a power struggle, when both parties should be working in unison, together, on an even level. Categorizing the organization of the date as a man’s duty and the woman’s duty as making the organization easy for the man places each person in a socially constructed (by the magazine) position to which they must adhere. In our modern times, there should not be a division of control or a set social position for either party. The man no longer has to be the organizer of the date – both parties should be able to create a date that incorporates their own interests, so that neither one has to compromise their interests for the sake of the other. A woman can still be easy-going while putting forth her own ideas.

I understand that dating tips are sought out by women, but these specific dating tips suggest that a woman should put the man’s pleasure first. Of course, this magazine is centred on advice for women, but there are other ways to give advice that does not promote submissiveness in women, such as taking an equal amount of responsibility in the organization of a date or each person adhering to his and her own schedule and working around each one.

However, this is not to say that a woman should have an “equal” position to a man – femininity and masculinity are not to be considered in relation to each other but as separate entities, each with its own uniqueness. As such, Ward’s statement that women should “agree to agree” was appalling to me as a modern woman in society. In essence, this statement is suggesting that a woman should agree with a man despite her own opinions. If a heady subject was introduced into the conversation, a woman taking this advice to heart may not be convinced to offer her opinion. Hopefully this advice would not be taken to this degree; however, the fact that it could be taken as such is problematic. Perhaps this was not Ward’s intent, but this is what I infer from his “advice”.

Moreover, advising one to “be available” and “be up for going anywhere” is suggested to avoid irritating one’s date, and Ward suggests that a woman should not “irritate” a man by telling him that she is unavailable for the next two weeks. Irritate?! What if a man was unavailable for two weeks? Ward does not touch on this reversal, which perhaps he should, but, from previous articles that I have read in this magazine over the years, I propose that a woman would be given the advice that a man has his own life or to accept that he will be unavailable and plan things during those two weeks to keep busy. Ward suggests that the “unavailable for two weeks” is a ploy that women use to seem “attractive and interesting”. This supposition is severely degrading to women – to suppose that a woman is only claiming to be busy in order to act coy around a man implies that a man’s impression is, to a woman, of the utmost importance, which places him in a superior position. Granted, some women may play this game, but I sincerely hope that the modern woman has enough respect for herself to avoid playing silly games at the expense of her dignity.

Ward essentially suggests that women should put things that matter on hold to adhere to a man’s schedule, in order to keep him content. While Ward deems Grey’s Anatomy and spinning class trivial enough to be skipped, it is not up to a man to decide the importance of something in a woman’s life. She should not have to give up something that she deems important in order to please a man.

The introduction to the article warned that Ward’s advice would be harsh and “biting”, but it does not warn the readers that it would also be sexist. In a world in which women are continually struggling for recognition of their own uniqueness, this article takes a step back in feminine power and suggests that women’s motives when dating a man are based completely around his pleasure and his impression of her, which places her back into a submissive position. Not only is this article insulting, it also implies that women have “bad habits” that are hindering their love life. Perhaps this article should be promoting a woman’s independence and, in a society that still gives preference to men, reassuring women that they do not have to fit into the stereotypical mould of a complying woman.

I guess you could say that I'm a feminist, and I would totally agree. Feminists aren't all crazed lesbians (not my opinion, but the general one) that hate men. I happen to think men are wonderful and I'm obviously on the lookout for one. Rather, feminists are women who feel that our gender should be celebrated for what it is and lobbied for against those who still believe in women as inferior. I mean, let's face it, we're pretty awesome.

Love,

Bella