the new february issue of cosmopolitan has already hit stores, so i'll need to finish up my review of january's issue now! (i won't go into this new issue, featuring mila kunis, but i suppose the cover speaks for itself. i am pleased to see words like "confidence" and "gyno" featured sporadically in february's issue, however.) without further ado, let's look at the last pages of cosmo's january issue.
ads: extra gum, tampax, nyquil, discover, and plan b all features ads on pages 100-172 without using objectification, sexism or skinny, tall, tan white models. pantene broke the mold with their ad for "curl-shaping gel", advertised by a photoshopped redhead, and secret deodorant continued the trend with an ad claiming to "keep your hottest body parts feeling fresh" with a photo of a tall, skinny model. fekkai hair products advertised with a similar model. other than small ads for things like psychic services and"secret encounters" (most of which featured photoshopped white women), there weren't many other ads in this section of the magazine.
content (pages 100-150): the ads in this section were less frequent and moreover less offensive, and the articles seemed to follow suit. "you've gotta unplug- seriously" discusses social media's effect on mood and stress, but not without displaying a model on her computer next to the words "your..you-name-it gadget is bringing out your bitchy side." while the topic of the internet's impact on mood and psyche is worthwhile, cosmo seems to have dumbed it down a tad, as if women need to be reminded of their inherent bitchiness in order to stop doing something destructive.in "raise your game", women send in work-related questions to a "career genius" for advice. this month's "career genius" happens to be a man, and the "career-focused" model on the page happens to be white, thin, tall, tan, and wearing a black cocktail dress, but again, the content is there in an attempt to help women be successful at work. it's an idea i can get behind regardless of how watered down cosmopolitan serves it. "shameless money-saving tricks" offers suggestions on how to cut your grocery bill, find bargain vacations and cheap electronic equipment (as well as "luxe deals" and how to cut out your "candy fix" in order to afford more clothes, shoes, etc.) "bitch it out!" is a vent page for readers to send in photos and stories of frustrating situations.cosmo also includes a fold-out poster of joe manganiello, wet and shirtless, contributing to that ever-present vibe of body objectification (this time, of a man) and desperation. his half-page "interview" includes questions about shirtlessness, being scruffy, his sexiest date, and what a woman can say to him to win him over. classy.flip-flopping again, the "cosmo health report" offers valuable information on combining other medications with birth control, germs and STD risks. in "their year of living fearlessly", interns of the innocence project, a nonprofit organization that fight to free wrongfully convicted criminals, describe their journey in detail and discuss what they each did to fight "hopeless cases". this is a great, empowering article and it saddens me that it's stuffed away in the back of the magazine. "i gave in to my girl crush" offers an anonymous, somewhat fleeting article about a girl's lesbian encounter in college. "i consider myself straight, but i'm not ashamed of what happened," the writer says.back on the "sexy vs. skanky" page earlier in the issue, i discussed how the word "skank" is used negatively in cosmo and promised to return to the subject later. in "the skankiest moments of the year", danielle staub, heidi montag, snooki, lindsay lohan, coco, and models in catsuits are all dubbed "skanks". while a few men (keifer sutherland, charlie sheen) are also listed here, the article is overwhelmingly geared toward "skanky" women. while the women i'm mentioning might not be considered ideal citizens, using the word "skank" to describe them works as a form of slut-shaming, pitting women against each other and generating power behind these pointless words. urban dictionary defines the word as a "derogatory term for a (usually younger) female, implying trashiness or tackiness, lower-class status, poor hygiene, flakiness, and a scrawny, pockmarked sort of ugliness. may also imply promiscuity, but not necessarily. can apply to any race, but most commonly used to describe white trash." i'm sorry, but that's disgusting. cosmo is perpetuating the use of a sexist, racist term that women readers may not have used otherwise.

further proof that cosmopolitan advocates girl-on-girl rivalry can be found in "the naughtiest thing i've ever done" an anonymous column where this month, a woman describes "getting back at" another girl for stealing her boyfriend. how old are we? why is this relevant news? cosmo columnist and ever-insightful chelsea handler later offers advice on how to deal when you have a backstabbing friend and when a boss hits on you.in "8 trends to wear all year", a white, tall, thin, tanned, photoshopped model wears short shorts, a backless dress, kitten heels, a "minimalist trench" and other styles for the "fashion addict". in the next fashion spread, "disaster-proof date outfits", a second white, tall, thin, tanned, photoshopped model is posed alongside seth rogen in ultra-feminine styles."the return of sexy curls" makes use of four thin, vigorously photoshopped models, two of them african-american, to showcase different curly hairstyles. in the next beauty short, "makeup men can't resist", cosmo investigates how to create a "natural" look men love while still wearing tons of makeup- apparently "guys, who are clueless about cosmetics, associate the term [natural] with smooth skin, sparkling eyes, and plump, alluring lips- all features that signal ability to reproduce." so i'm supposed to be beautiful naturally, but also wear lots of makeup, but that makeup has to appear natural, but not too natural or men won't like it? i'm already confused.the "cosmo life" section boasts ideas for weekend trips, a few book suggestions, party ideas, home decorating tips, diet ideas, nine places to find men, date ideas and a bonus "men's pet peeve." the cosmo astrology section includes your best love matches based off your sign, as well as ways to "turn him on" based off his sign.in the last few pages we find a sex story and a quiz called "are you an attention addict?" (protip: don't post pictures of yourself in a bikini on facebook, or be too eager with the karaoke machine.) because this is the january issue, cosmopolitan offers a special insert: the "astrologer 2011", offering month-by-month predictions for each sign of "erotic escapades" to come, their hottest days for love and sex, and what they should want in a man. there's also a compatibility chart matching different signs together, and the guide offers tips on how to "win" or "turn off" men of all signs. i'm a little put off by how sex- and love-focused these predictors are..and incidentally, each page contains a photo of a tall, thin model and a shirtless guy.

as you may have gleaned, i'm really disappointed in the desperate and self-loathing nature of this issue, and cosmopolitan in general. whether it was the "101 things about men", "stud meter" or "makeup men can't resist" article, the magazine seems to find a special way to alienate, obsess over, or offend just about anyone. very little attention was paid to lgbt or non-white readers, and the overall message here is to maintain your appearance as diligently as possible in order to "win a man." in 2011, magazines such as these plain shouldn't exist, or at least are in desperate need of an image reboot. cosmo, i've seen your ability to run pro-woman articles like "their year of living fearlessly." more of this, and less slut-bashing, misogynistic, photoshopped robots, isn't just a good idea- it's necessary.