The common thread running through all these, to me, is the pervasive subtext that a woman's appearance and especially her body are fair game for comment and examination at every single moment of her life. That she exists primarily not so that she can pursue her own goals, but so that people can look at her. A woman doesn't just wear clothes to do something, she "showcases her physique".

It's great seeing these headlines subverted, but that they exist in the first place to mock just makes me so depressed.

Celebrity gossip like this is painfully stupid anyway. They're just people, there's no need to follow them and take pictures of their daily lives (which aren't even interesting, because nobody makes getting groceries or whatever other daily task interesting). The unwarranted focus on women's appearances is the icing on the shit-cake.

while these types of headlines are stupid, I'm not sure they are sexist, George Clooney going to the shop or Leo Dicaprio putting on a few pounds would get the same coverage. also all but one of the articles above (and I think the one is a fake name) were written by women, I'm not saying that makes it unable to be sexist, It's just an interesting observation.

Hilarious! Shared this over at Firebrand Progressives

I am proud I don't know who any of these women are to begin with.

Less the last picture, all the articles are written by women.

Rewriting the headlines simply engages the publisher with controversy and encourages continuation of the genre.

Better to stop purchasing this nonsense altogether, if you want to have an impact.

I get the point of these contrasts but celebrity news is an ENTIRELY different breed. Celebrities get "called out" for EVERY little banal thing they do. The males are called "out of control" when the photo whores are able to bait them into behaving in anger that the lives of their families are being disrupted by the photo whores themselves and the women are called out for every little aspect of their looks.

For me, this contrast would be more powerful if it were about female politicians, who presumably, can do their jobs well being butt ugly or drop dead gorgeous. So focusing on their looks says absolutely NOTHING about their ability to be good legislators.

But in the visual entertainment business how a woman looks has a lot to do with how she actually performs her job. Also, in the visual entertainment business, a woman's ability to stay "in the public eye" also has a lot to do with her ability to get acting jobs. So I am not fully committed to the idea that "articles" scrutinizing the looks of female Hollywood stars (and thus giving them free exposure, which helps keep them in the public eye) are all that sexist or even inappropriate.

The REAL problem, to me, is that the public is in a mind warp where how celebrities look and behave is held up as some sort of standard for how all men and women should look a behave. That is importance that the PUBLIC gives to these tabloid magazines and the people they cover. That is not an importance that the celebrities themselves proclaim about themselves. Athletes are held up expressing FOR the exceptionality. They can do what the average human can not through goddess given athletic talent and hard practice and discipline. Yet somehow the public has agreed that ANY woman should have to be held up to the beauty standards of a Hollywood screen star (and of course found wanting).

Love it! Thanks for the piece, I included it in my weekend reading roundup: http://t.co/Tr8jXuGR4Z