Вижте тази публикация в Instagram. I landed my first Cosmo cover when I was 17 years old. Twenty-six covers later, I was a proud record holder. Cosmopolitan at that time signified a magazine for women and BY women. It was the first magazine with a focus on women's economic independence, sexuality and sexual fantasies. • In fact, I thought Cosmopolitan turned men's mags on their head: in Cosmo it was the women with the sexual and economic power and it was the men who were objectified. (Who could forget - circa 1972 - Cosmo centerfold Burt Reynolds in all his hairy, naked glory on a bearskin rug?) • Walmart recently announced that due to Cosmopolitan's 'sexualized' covers it would pull the magazine from its check-out stands. For all sorts of reasons, I think Walmart is hardly the company to be making moral judgment calls for America. • The objectification of women is worldwide and thousands of years old. It's not as if Cosmo is the cause. #MeToo has opened up a conversation about women being objectified and it's one we need to keep exploring. But to use this movement as a reason to essentially blacklist a historic women's publication only serves to allow transients into a conversation that is not theirs. • What women want, or at least what I want as a woman, is to be free to make choices about my body, and for any objectification to be my decision. This has been the domain of men throughout history -- and if we are to be equal, it needs to be ours as well. Doing away with a magazine that has a sexy woman on the cover only serves to shame us for daring to appear as we wish. For daring to be sexy. For daring to choose. • It's no comfort that Walmart diminishes the significance of this move by saying it will still keep the magazine in its back racks. I can't help but thinking about the 'The Handmaid's Tale.' As if there's a slow, but sure, quieting of women's voices. • #paulina4decades Публикация, споделена от Paulina Porizkova (@paulinaporizkov) на Апр 10, 2018 в 9:05 PDT
I landed my first Cosmo cover when I was 17 years old. Twenty-six covers later, I was a proud record holder. Cosmopolitan at that time signified a magazine for women and BY women. It was the first magazine with a focus on women's economic independence, sexuality and sexual fantasies. • In fact, I thought Cosmopolitan turned men's mags on their head: in Cosmo it was the women with the sexual and economic power and it was the men who were objectified. (Who could forget - circa 1972 - Cosmo centerfold Burt Reynolds in all his hairy, naked glory on a bearskin rug?) • Walmart recently announced that due to Cosmopolitan's 'sexualized' covers it would pull the magazine from its check-out stands. For all sorts of reasons, I think Walmart is hardly the company to be making moral judgment calls for America. • The objectification of women is worldwide and thousands of years old. It's not as if Cosmo is the cause. #MeToo has opened up a conversation about women being objectified and it's one we need to keep exploring. But to use this movement as a reason to essentially blacklist a historic women's publication only serves to allow transients into a conversation that is not theirs. • What women want, or at least what I want as a woman, is to be free to make choices about my body, and for any objectification to be my decision. This has been the domain of men throughout history -- and if we are to be equal, it needs to be ours as well. Doing away with a magazine that has a sexy woman on the cover only serves to shame us for daring to appear as we wish. For daring to be sexy. For daring to choose. • It's no comfort that Walmart diminishes the significance of this move by saying it will still keep the magazine in its back racks. I can't help but thinking about the 'The Handmaid's Tale.' As if there's a slow, but sure, quieting of women's voices. • #paulina4decades
Публикация, споделена от Paulina Porizkova (@paulinaporizkov) на Апр 10, 2018 в 9:05 PDT