This week's accolade goes to repeat offender GlamURGH magazine for their feeble attempt to defend the Playboy conglomerate. And we thought you were cool (oh wait...)
And to think, Tanya de Grunwald, you've written for the Guardian. Do they KNOW about this shit? Were you all like, "Guys, I can't come to the knit your own lesbian muesli group (totes just stole that line off Lucy Mangan lolz), because I have to like, interview Cooper Hefner for Glamour magazine and pretend I'm totes on board with the objectification of women?" Because I imagine that went down like a SHIT SANDWICH.
Then again, as Glamour gloatingly points out, The Guardian and the Sunday Times are BANNED from playing with Playboy because, well, they can see the fucking wood for the trees (BTW, does anyone remember that AWESOME Camilla Long- I think it was her-article for the Times when she totally trashed Hefner as the slightly sad, pervy old man he really is? That was some quality journalism right there. No sarcasm.)
It's all fairly mundane stuff at first. Blah blah blah, weren't your schoolfriends totally jealous of all that hot pussy wondering around your dad's house? Blah blah blah "It's an adult brand, it's not Disney" (no shit)
De Grunwald goes on to make cursory reference to how some women might not be completely on board with their sisters having to dress up like ickle bunnies (thereby reducing them to that which is animal, but also like, infantile. But then they're supposed to be sexy, too? I am so confused.) She even lets an Object spokesperson have their say: "Sexualising women as bunny rabbits is not sexy and it is not empowering. It is sexist and everyone knows it."
Well, like, duh.
But NO. Not duh. Because Tanya is all like, "Dudes, it's not a strip club, yeah?" Because the girls don't show their lala's to strangers for money. Instead they wander around with a subjugating bit of fluff on their asses, but, you know, that might be ok? Because it's, like, quite a complicated issue after all. IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE THE MEN CAN'T TOUCH THEM, right?
"I actually find that the bunnies add to the atmosphere of the club," says Tanya. That's one of your gender you're talking about, love, not a fucking chandelier, not jazz fusion lounge music, a WOMAN. "Their outifts are fun, not humiliating," she goes on.
Oh, Tanya. What really strikes me about this article is how desperate you are to find even a tiniest smidge of something positive to say about the Playboy club. It's almost like you're starting to believe your own bullshit, but you're not quite there yet. Because, Tanya, I think you know it's bullshit, really. All the journalists at Glamour must know this is bullshit. I can see the features meeting now: "oooooh, let's be edgy by saying the objectification of women is you know, sort of ok. Then we can drink latte and laugh evilly about how we are helping to maintain the patriarchy."
It gets worse but to be quite honest, I am losing the will to live by this point. Tanya blathers on about liking the retro-ness of the Playboy brand (because the fifties were a fucking walk in the park for us, hey?) Because you know, Don Draper swings by who, by the way Glamour ladies, is a character who is written to be a complete cunt and not a role model) But anyway, they feel a bit icky about the whole porno vibe of the Playboy mag (eeeew vaginas!), but then, "it's not strictly our place to judge." What?! You're a woman. It is completely your place to judge. There.are.no.words.
Thanks, GlamURGH, your contribution to gender politics is officially sweet fuck all. We're not expecting you to have a working knowledge of the post-feminist fetishisation of well, everything, because you're a fashion magazine. But your readers deserve better, and you know it. Nil points.