“My name is Allison, and I’m addicted to fashion magazines.”
Well, not really, but I do like the celebrity gossip. I just can’t help myself. My roommate is similarly afflicted. I’m pretty sure my sorority sisters really are addicted.
But every now and then (when the magazines decide to tackle politics) I get annoyed. I also get annoyed when they put in pictures of twins wearing matching outfits, but I digress.
The June 2006 issue of Marie Claire breaks both of the AK rules of fashion magazines, featuring illogical politics and a photo essay of twins in matching outfits. The issue features an investigation of how long it takes to get a gun vs. how long it takes to get a restraining order. Turns out you can get a gun more quickly, and I think that’s great (when’s the last time you scared off an assailant by waving a government issued piece of paper?) But Marie Claire doesn’t share my thought process. Marie Claire is outraged. Marie Claire blames guns. I’m not sure what for, but Marie Claire blames guns! But the problem isn’t that the reporter could get a gun in a timely fashion. That’s a good thing. The problem is that government bureaucracy made it difficult for the woman to get a restraining order. So, why isn’t Marie Claire complaining about that?
The article goes on to compare several other items that don’t even relate to each other. Is it easier to get details for making a bomb or details for making a Big Mac? Is it easier to get Heroin or emergency contraception? Is it faster to eat a banana or an orange? OK, I made that last one up, but it makes about as much sense as the rest of the article.
The common link in all the comparisons is that the product or service with the most government regulation and bureaucracy is the slowest to get. But Marie Claire doesn’t mention government bureaucracy. The article instead chooses to hate on whatever you can get faster.
The issue also names Eve Ensler’s V-Day as the second best charity. Thank you, but I prefer charities that don’t objectify women to raise their funds.