Why Do Women's Magazines Lie About Such Stupid Shit?

Illustration for article titled Why Do Women's Magazines Lie About Such Stupid Shit?

So remember way back yesterday, when we shared the harrowing story of Laura Wells, whose employers subjected her to the demeaning experience of getting her "natural russet hair" dyed BLONDE simply because it looked better on TV? Well, a reader who purports to have attended college with Laura Wells in the nineties gave some insight as to why her bosses might have thought this: in the nineties "naturally russet" Laura was a natural blonde!

It was an unnatural red hue all over, with skunky blonde stripes in the front, obviously and purposely fake. Truly, the hair to the front of her earline was blonde, and the rest was red. I can't imagine highlights, then, would be traumatic for her. However, we were English majors, so I can imagine she enjoyed writing* about the experience as if it were.


Which we would totally just save to the folder marked "scurrilous/entertaining gossip" if it didn't arrive just before another email from a former Cosmo Girl! insider calling into question the veracity of yesterday's silicone-doning teenage boys that spoke to a point we're always scratching our heads about: Why do women's magazines always lie about the dumbest shit?

I just wanted to comment on the CosmoGirl post. Half of those quotes are made up. I used to intern there and one of my main duties was finding bullshit quotes like that. I always used my boyfriend and his small group of friends. I ask them the question and transcribe it word for word. I'd change their age to anywhere from 19 to 22. He's 27 and his friends are all between 27 and 30. If they asked for a location like "New York, NY" I'd change it to "Boise, ID."

The editors knew what I was doing. I think one of the suggested it. And when they called my boyfriend for fact checking - yes, they actually fact check this nonsense - they would acknowledge that it's fake. Then my boss would "tweak" his answers to make them more BS than they already are and voila!

Also, if you mention this on the site can you please not use my name. I honestly liked the editors there. They were just doing a job. I've never held it against them because I'm sure every other mag does the same exact thing.

And yeah, every other mag does do the same thing. But why? Here's a handy trick for gauging the opinions of people in slightly different demographic groups and friend circles on a topic at hand: use the internet! And if the topic at hand is too pointless and warmed-over to even bother trolling Myspace, maybe find a new one! Which brings me to my last point, and this is kinda directed at Vogue: most of your readers will experience bigger traumas in their lifetimes than those related to their beauty regimens. Maybe write about those for a change?

*She did not actually write the piece.

Share This Story

Get our `newsletter`



This explains a friend of a friend who "interviewed" me for a piece on the differences in what women in their 20's, 30's and 40's, and so on, look for in a man. During the interview I gave the reporter dangerous and identifiable specifics, but refused to use the names of the men I had dated and to keep them straight in my mind and hers, I used dead movie star names (i.e., Gregory Peck, Clark Gable, etc.). When the piece showed up on the newstands months down the line I was effing appalled that this reporter's conclusion was that "women in their 20's are all about looks and the physical ideal" as evidenced by my nicknames during the interview!!! Fuck THAT! She contacted me numerous times afterwards to take part in other stories and ignored the cuntface. Screwy broad.