On a more serious note, I should like to point out that there are plenty of magazines flying off the shelves which do the following:
1. showcase one in a million women (and men, also)
2. showcase them in one in a million lighting
3. ...with one in a million makeup jobs
4. ...one in a million photography
5. ...one in a million Photoshop care
And while this is of course a general statement about the way we present images (and movies, and 'news' programs, and...and...and...i.e. etc. etc. etc.), what it boils down to is
People attempting to sell products to other people by crafting the next "most perfect" human specimen draped in LL Bean sportswear for men and whatever 6-8 square inch piece of fabric clings to 'private areas' for women such that the publisher isn't obliged to cover the magazine in one of those mostly-opaque white plastic sleeves.
You want the truth?
Women buy into that nonsense just as much as men do. Later, the 'blowback' comes when *everyone* learns they can't be a swimsuit model or a GQ cover boy with the perfect $3000 watch to make sure everyone can identify a piece of human trash by the glitzy tag placed prominently on his wrist.
All while a fair-bet 20% of the people in the world can hardly find clean drinking water let alone food or reasonable protection from 'the elements.'
And the children of Western culture who still have yet to grow up? The ones who can't consistently maintain their subscription to Ethics 101: The Pocket Digest, a quarterly publication--since reading good literature more than four times a year is pretty excessive--what about all those people?
It costs a buck per issue, and is probably the best reading you're ever going to do--unless you've already graduated beyond, let's say, a Masters in English Lit.
I mean WHO THE FUCK DECIDED WE NEED 8,000 DIFFERENT TRASHY MAGAZINES TO COME OUT ON A MONTHLY BASIS?
It sure as shit was not me. We could do two issues per season. 33% fewer magazines with...dare I hope for it?...20% better content!
Oh lord no! We can't do anything sensible like that! That would be attacking one of the roots of the problem: taking out some number of the moving targets or at least reducing the frequency at which they bombard young people with unattainable visions of what they might one day become.
You know, because we don't want virtually all the kids growing up wanting to be a sports star, an actor, or some other kind of celebrity (90%) and just 1 in 10 kids making their way in the world without being held back by the emotional toil of ridding themselves of the chorus of marketing.
You know, that $200B/year industry in the U.S. which burns through more money than the collected total savings of the bottom 70% of the socioeconomic ladder and contributes by far the most to making sure those bank accounts stay dry.
So I ask you, what don't we objectify in this country?
