tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28957011.post-55900918125496340202008-06-01T06:18:00.000-04:002008-06-01T06:18:00.000-04:002008-06-01T06:18:00.000-04:00Okay, so what is so obviously troublesome to women is that, after all the perceived advancements they've made, a men's magazine still thinks it's good for a laugh to point out that a certain role model for women is genuinely unappealing to the great majority of men.<BR/><BR/>However, that men have not changed tactics much over the years shouldn't be such a surprise, especially to such a seasoned professional on the ways of men as such as Mrs. Parker or Mrs. Bradshaw. Maxim is a lowest common denominator magazine that is, I would imagine, bought by men who are afraid to bring magazines with actual pornography (and often better writing (i.e. Playboy and Hustler)) into their homes. Its comments on Mrs. Parker are akin to a collective instinctive growl coming from the baser part of men. I get the "unsexiest" title hurts, especially when your freaking show has "Sex" in the title, but she's much to alienate herself from the average male.<BR/><BR/>Julia Roberts was a similar phenomenon and, to some degree, still is a woman whom other women believe is much more appealing to men than she is in actuality. Even in her hottest commodity period circa Pretty Woman, Roberts never struck such a sour note with men as Parker does now.<BR/><BR/>However, Julia Roberts never became a brand. She kept being an actor and got better and better at her craft. She was plastered across women’s magazines with the same vigor as supermodels for some time, but that's pretty much where it ended. Perhaps the media synergy juggernaut just wasn't the same a decade or so ago, but I'd like to chalk some of it up to character, self-respect, and/or intelligence on Roberts’ part. <BR/><BR/>While Maxim is not quite the unsexiest magazine (high-resolution clothed women who have had every flaw, pore, and nipple removed by computer is a poor substitute for eroticism and I just don’t care for it, but some apparently do) there’s a definite “takes-one-to-know-one” aspect going on. Much like it should be difficult to argue the merits of Maxim to a woman with basic reasoning skills, smarter men won't care when you tell us that Parker used to be poor (should I take pity on the used-to-be-blind as well?), has affordable products (thanks for shopping!), etc. and nothing will sway us because, especially as of late, she has done nothing to endear herself to us. Instead, her Maxim-opposite brand based on herself, Bradshaw, sex, clothing, and cosmetics just makes men like me want to either puke or cover every orifice that might catch a whiff of what the Parker is cooking. Men shouldn’t feel badly for treating her and her products any differently than women treat the similar crap we consume. What’s vainglorious for the goose is unsexy to the gander.<BR/>-embryotronAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com